 |
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 15, 2021
"Millionaires" Graduated Income Tax
Exposed
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
This proposal (HD-237)
would require eligible voters to cast a ballot in any
November General Election or face a fine of $15 that would
be added to the non-voter’s state tax liability for each
election missed....
“Where else but
Massachusetts is everything that is not forbidden by law
made mandatory?” asked Chip Ford, executive director
of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “Voting is a right,
therefore not voting is a right as well if that is
someone’s choice.”
Beacon Hill Roll
Call
March 8-12, 2021
Pay Fine For Not Voting
Proponents of a
proposed millionaires tax on the fast-track to next year’s
ballot say the measure could bolster education and
transportation funding by $2 billion, but a new
watchdog report warns it could wind up being a “blank
check” for fattening up state government.
“The Massachusetts
surtax doesn’t actually require that the legislature
increase spending on education and transportation,” said
Greg Sullivan, of Pioneer Institute, who co-authored
“Lessons for Massachusetts from California’s ‘Blank Check’
Tax on High Earners” with Andrew Mikula....
Lawmakers this
session are likely to advance a ballot initiative that would
propose a constitutional amendment to impose a 4% surtax on
people earning over $1 million. Lawmakers say the cash would
be earmarked for transportation and education spending, but
during a 2019 constitutional convention state legislators
rejected two proposed amendments requiring that the new
revenues be directed to these purposes.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, March 9, 2021
Massachusetts millionaires tax would be ‘blank check’
for increased government spending: report
Advocates claim a
proposed 4 percent surtax on high earners will raise nearly
$2 billion per year for education and transportation, but
similar tax hikes in other states resulted in highly
discretionary rather than targeted spending, according to a
new report published by Pioneer Institute. That same result
or worse is possible in Massachusetts because during the
2019 constitutional convention state legislators rejected —
not just one, but two — proposed amendments requiring that
the new revenues be directed to these purposes.
After a 2012 tax
hike in California aimed to increase education investments,
the state legislature dedicated little more than the minimum
required by law to education and redirected the majority of
the funds to general government operations. The result was a
soaring state payroll.
“The Massachusetts
surtax doesn’t actually require that the legislature
increase spending on education and transportation,” said
Greg Sullivan, who co-authored Lessons for Massachusetts
from California’s “blank check” tax on high earners with
Andrew Mikula. “In California, a separate amendment to that
state’s constitution required that at least 40 percent be
spent on education. There is no such requirement in
Massachusetts, meaning overall state education and
transportation funding is likely to remain essentially flat
under the surtax, and could even decline.” ...
When the proposed
graduated surtax proposal came before the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in 2018, the late Chief Justice
Ralph Gants asked counsel for the state Attorney General
whether it was correct that passage of the income tax hike
“may or may not result in any increase in transportation or
education spending.” Counsel responded that the Chief
Justice’s understanding was correct.
The Massachusetts
Attorney General’s counsel submitted a brief to the SJC in
2018 stating that “the Legislature could choose to reduce
funding in specified budget categories from other sources
and replace it with the new surtax revenue.” In its
decision, the court added, “We are not entirely unaware of
the possibility that, as the plaintiffs argue, funding for
education and transportation were added to the initiative
petition as a means to "sweeten the pot" for voters.”
“This is exactly
the flaw that was revealed when the SJC took up a similar
proposal in 2018, and both the Attorney General’s Office and
the late Chief Justice Ralph Gants pointed out that the
measure doesn’t actually require any increase in education
and transportation spending,” said Kevin Martin, the lead
attorney in the 2018 case. “There’s no reason to believe
what happened in California won’t happen in Massachusetts.”
At the June 2019
constitutional convention, two amendments (H86-1 and H86-11)
sought to require that new surtax revenues go to education
and transportation. They were rejected handily by state
legislators, 40-156 and 39-154, respectively.
“The rejection of
these amendments leaves Massachusetts without even the
minimum funding requirements California has in place,” noted
Pioneer Institute executive director Jim Stergios. “Through
their votes, the legislature expressed very clearly that
they intend to put the money into the General Fund. It’s the
equivalent of a blank check."
Pioneer Institute
Wednesday, March 9, 2021
Press Release
Study Finds Massachusetts Graduated Income Tax May Be a
“Blank Check”
and Not Increase Funding for Designated Priorities
The $1.9 trillion
bill, approved by the Democratic-controlled Congress,
includes direct payments and a jobless-benefit extension, as
well as hundreds of billions of dollars for COVID-19
vaccines and treatments, schools, state and local
governments and businesses that are still reeling from the
economic fallout of the coronavirus.
"This historic
legislation is about rebuilding the backbone of this country
and giving people in this nation, working people, middle
class folks, people who built the country, a fighting
chance," Biden said in remarks from the White House.
All told,
Massachusetts stands to get nearly $8 billion in aid when
the law is enacted, according to estimates from the House
Oversight Committee.
At least 37 cities
with populations of more than 50,000 will be getting $1.7
billion in direct federal aid through the relief package.
The Salem News
Friday, March 12, 2021
State gets big windfall from relief package
The unemployment
rate in Massachusetts fell to 7.8 percent in January, and
revisions to 2020 estimates have pinpointed the highest
spike of pandemic-era joblessness to last April, labor
officials announced Friday....
Friday's release
also revised the monthly data estimates for 2020. Labor
officials now say the unemployment rate peaked in
Massachusetts at 16.4 percent in April, a change from the
previously reported high of 17.7 percent in June.
The revised
unemployment rates steadily declined from April to 15.3
percent in May, 14.8 percent in June, 9.8 percent in July,
9.3 percent in August, 8.9 percent in September, 8.5 percent
in October, 8.4 percent in November and 8.4 percent in
December.
State House News
Service
Friday, March 12, 2021
Mass. Unemployment Rate Dips Below 8 Percent
Happy Anniversary!
Happy
Anniversary?!?!?
That’s how Gov.
Charlie Baker on Wednesday commemorated the first
anniversary of his signing of the declaration declaring an
“emergency” over a seasonal virus — with a gleeful shout-out
of “Happy Anniversary!” to his assorted adoring coat holders
and payroll patriots assembled at a factory in West
Bridgewater.
Happy Anniversary?
Tell it to the
scores of dead at the Holyoke Soldiers Home....
Of course Baker’s
amen chorus in the Boston media gave his jaw-dropping “Happy
Anniversary” shout-out a good leaving alone, stressing
instead his alleged tearing up as he discussed … whatever.
But here is the
real money quote from his sermon to the faithful, discussing
the (alleged) greater availability of vaccinations for more
people:
“To our health
care workers, our first responders, our long-term care
workers and so many others in Massachusetts who were looking
for it, uh, this is really in some respects, uh, a very
special moment and a happy anniversary in some ways for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
A very special
moment and a happy anniversary in some ways!
Is that how you’ll
remember this disastrous last year?
The author of this
calamitous, largely avoidable catastrophe was chuckling,
giggling, as he brought up the very special moment:
“So um, this is uh
the one-year anniversary of the signing of the (inaudible
chuckling and off-mike comments) of the executive order here
in Massachusetts that put the Commonwealth into a state of
emergency.”
Surely he meant to
say, a state of hysteria. Or panic.
On this happy
anniversary, let’s consider some of Massachusetts’ other
happy statistics from the 15 days to flatten the curve,
which is now entering its second year:
After ranking
third for most of the year among the 50 states in deaths per
100,000 population, Massachusetts now stands fourth in
fatalities at 240 per 100,000, trailing only New Jersey
(268) New York (250) and Rhode Island (242).
Neighboring
Vermont’s death rate: 34, compared with Massachusetts’ 242.
New Hampshire has 87 deaths per 100,000, Maine has 54....
For that, he
crushed an entire state. Forty percent of the state’s
restaurants are gone forever. Only three states in the Union
lost a higher percentage of jobs than Maskachusetts.
Happy Anniversary!
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 12, 2021
Nothing to be ‘happy’ about with Massachusetts pandemic
anniversary
By Howie Carr
The Massachusetts
House unanimously approved a wide-ranging tax relief, paid
emergency sick leave and unemployment system funding bill
Thursday that would soften jobless aid insurance premium
hikes set to hit businesses in the coming weeks.
Both laid-off
workers and employers stand to gain access to tax breaks
under the bill (H 89), which is built on a Gov. Charlie
Baker proposal aimed at stabilizing the state's unemployment
system and also includes provisions such as creation of a
paid sick leave program for employees who are affected by
COVID-19 and tax breaks on any forgiven Paycheck Protection
Program loans from 2020.
The bill would
freeze a rate schedule, thereby imposing smaller increases
in unemployment taxes businesses pay in 2021 and 2022. It
would also authorize $7 billion of borrowing to keep the
depleted unemployment fund solvent and pay back federal
loans, plus impose a separate surcharge on businesses to
cover federal interest.
House Speaker Ron
Mariano told reporters after the bill's passage that "the
thrust of the bill is always about getting people back to
work."
"We're trying to
help small businesses get back on their feet," Mariano said.
"The more money we can keep in and under the control of the
small business owners, the better off we're all going to be.
It allows them to hire more people with the freeze in the
rate, the forgiveness of the PPP stuff allows them to retain
capital. All of this goes into the hiring back of
employees."
The House voted
155-0 in favor of the bill. Four lawmakers -- Republican
Reps. F. Jay Barrows of Mansfield, Angelo D'Emilia of
Bridgewater, and Donald Wong of Saugus as well as
independent Rep. Susannah Whipps of Athol -- voted present.
Senate leaders
expect to take the bill up next week and have already
indicated their support.
The state's
unemployment system is funded by contributions from
businesses, which can scale up depending on how often an
employer's workers seek the aid.
COVID-19 and the
widespread changes to public life it wrought created a tidal
wave of joblessness, spiking at a 17.7 percent statewide
unemployment rate last June. The demand wiped out the
unemployment insurance trust fund, which cratered from a
balance of $1.6 billion in February 2020 to $2.2 billion in
the red by year's end.
State House News
Service
Thursday, March 11, 2021
House Aid Bill Addresses Solvency of Unemployment Fund
The spending law
signed this week by President Joe Biden will deliver over
$4.5 billion in budgetary relief for Massachusetts, but some
experts say it could also wind up doubling the cost of a
pair of tax breaks lawmakers want to extend to small
businesses and low-income workers unemployed over the past
year.
A part of the new
federal law intended to discourage states from using
billions in relief funding to finance tax cuts prohibits
states from using federal relief funding to offset a
reduction in state tax collections resulting from a change
in state tax law, including new rebates, deductions or
credits.
States that do use
federal relief funds to offset a tax cut "either directly or
indirectly" will be forced to pay back the amount they used,
which in this case could be as much as $225 million....
"There's certainly
a fair amount of uncertainty about the precise scope of the
federal clawback provision, although its intent appears to
be to prevent states from treating the federal assistance as
creating an opportunity to reduce state taxes in any
manner," said Peter Enrich, a law professor at Northeastern
University and a member of the Massachusetts Budget and
Policy Center board of directors....
On the same day
that Biden signed the historic $1.9 trillion law on
Thursday, House lawmakers on Beacon Hill voted unanimously
for a tax and unemployment insurance rate relief package
that would reduce the tax burden on some small businesses
and low-income workers by more than $200 million.
State House News
Service
Friday, March 12, 2021
Tax Cut Clawback Looms as New Federal Wildcard
May Affect Cost of Two Beacon Hill Initiatives
A top priority of
legislative Democrats early this session - to get a major
climate and emission reduction bill passed into law - hit a
snag Thursday when Senate Republicans blocked a vote on the
bill after being given less than a day to review the latest
version drafted by Democratic leaders....
Democrats,
including Senate President Karen Spilka and Sen. Michael
Barrett, had hoped to push forward with a vote on Thursday,
but details of the bill were changing throughout the day
Wednesday. A final draft was released to the Senate and the
public after 10 p.m., affording little time to review how
the bill had changed.
Senate Minority
Leader Bruce Tarr and the two other Republican members of
the Senate wrote to Spilka in the morning asking her to
delay the vote. When she chose not to, Tarr used a
procedural motion available to any senator to postpone
consideration of the bill until at least the next Senate
session.
Tarr said he took
the step to ensure "adequate time for the members and the
public to be able to review what is now standing for
consideration by this body," suggesting the Legislature was
"under no particular deadline to be able pass this bill,
although we all feel a great amount of urgency in responding
to the issue it seeks to address."
The Gloucester
Republican noted that it took 330 days between the time the
Senate voted on the initial version of the climate bill in
January 2020 until the first time it reached Baker's desk.
The delay drew a
rebuke from Democrats who accused the Republican leader of
standing in the way of action to address climate change.
Spilka issued a
statement describing herself as "profoundly disappointed"
that Republicans blocked a vote, while Ways and Means
Chairman Michael Rodrigues said his disappointment was
"bordering on anger." ...
[Sen. Michael
Barrett], who co-chairs the Committee on Telecommunication,
Utilities and Energy and helped write the bill, described
himself as "dejected" by the day's events.
"We have done
everything we can to make sure that we hear everyone in
Massachusetts and certainly the members of the minority
party in this very chamber," Barrett said. "It is
disheartening to realize we are once again facing the
prospect of delay and once again we have to wrestle with the
question of whether we are capable of rising to the occasion
of what we're told is an existential crisis."
Tarr took
exception to charges that he was trying to stall action on
climate change, or asking for something unusual. He said the
precise language of the amendments being recommended had not
been previously debated, despite claims by Democrats that
they had. He also pointed out that the time given to
senators to read this final bill was less than the Senate
rules allow before consideration of a conference committee
report.
"I know that there
may be some who would try to blur the line here and suggest
that wanting time to look at something is tantamount to
opposing an initiative. That is not the case," Tarr said.
State House News
Service
Thursday, March 11, 2021
Republicans Slow Push on Climate Bill Changes
Late Evening Release of Details Offered Short Review Window
Both branches of
the Massachusetts Legislature have now approved a
three-month extension of pandemic-inspired voting reforms,
setting the stage for a future debate over whether to keep
the changes in place permanently beyond the public health
crisis.
Passed unanimously
by the Senate Thursday, the bill (H 73) permits no-excuse
mail-in voting for any municipal or special state elections
held before June 30 and allows cities and towns to hold
in-person early voting periods ahead of those elections. It
also gives municipalities added flexibility if they choose
to reschedule this spring's local elections or caucuses....
Sen. Ryan Fattman,
a Sutton Republican who, with GOP Reps. Nicholas Boldyga and
Marc Lombardo, has written to Secretary of State William
Galvin posing a series of questions about mail-in balloting
in the 2020 elections, said he appreciated the public input
process.
"I personally look
at this bill and say, you know, we have a pandemic going on,
there is a consideration to these towns in allowing them to
have the appropriate adjustment to make sure that the
residents are safe and allowing the boards of selectmen and
the town councils and the select boards to make sure that
they follow suit on that," Fattman said. "But I want to
expound upon and be careful of ... is, there's been a lot of
sort of pronouncements and preludes to having no-excuse
mail-in balloting be permanent, in perpetuity, forever. And
I think there's a lot of questions that still need to be
answered before we start making those pronouncements and
guaranteeing that."...
Galvin and
lawmakers have put forward plans that would make
vote-by-mail a permanent feature in elections, including
bills that would also authorize voters to register and then
cast a ballot on the same day.
One of the bills,
filed by Rep. John Lawn and Sen. Cindy Creem, has almost 90
cosponsors, according to Common Cause Massachusetts
Executive Director Geoff Foster, who said that after the
Legislature's action to expand mail-in and early voting
through the spring it is now "time to look ahead towards the
fall municipal elections and to making these popular reforms
permanent."
Speaker Ronald
Mariano said in February that the House "looks forward to
making vote by mail a permanent way for residents to
exercise their right to vote during and beyond the
pandemic," and House Ways and Means Chairman Aaron
Michlewitz said this month there is a "large appetite" for
making mail-in voting permanent.
State House News
Service
Thursday, March 11, 2021
Election Reforms Poised to Extend Through Spring
Stage Set for Debate on Permanent Mail-In Voting
As Biden signed a
$1.9 trillion stimulus-and-more spending bill into law, the
Massachusetts House approved a state-level relief package
that aims to buoy businesses, workers and the state's
strained unemployment trust fund all.
Top House and
Senate Democrats announced that plan together. Quick passage
is expected in the Senate, where Republicans say exempting
forgiven Paycheck Protection Program loans to small
businesses from state taxes -- one component of the bill --
should be the body's top priority as a March 15 tax-filing
deadline looms.
After sending
Senate President Karen Spilka a note Thursday morning saying
he and the other two members of his caucus would be ready to
block any legislation that wasn't PPP tax-related, Minority
Leader Bruce Tarr did just that, using a parliamentary move
to keep the Senate from taking up a climate policy bill that
would lock the state into its goal of net-zero carbon
emissions by 2050.
It's just the
latest roadblock for the so-called climate roadmap bill,
which has been floating around the Legislature in various
forms since the pre-COVID days of February 2020.
Tarr objected to
the fact that the latest version of the bill, a redraft by
the Senate's Committee on Bills in Third Reading that
incorporates some of the amendments Baker wanted, emerged
for review after 10 p.m. Wednesday ahead of an expected
Thursday vote.
State House News
Service
Friday, March 12, 2021
Weekly Roundup
A year ago, the
emerging coronavirus pandemic put most Beacon Hill
legislating on hold. A year later, the Legislature is
getting into gear for a more normal session while the public
health emergency rages on and more people become eligible
and willing to get vaccinated against the virus.
Senate Democrats
on Monday take another run at advancing a sweeping emissions
reduction bill, one that the House seems intent to take
quick action on as well. The bill has been bouncing back and
forth from the Legislature to the governor's office since
the waning days of the last legislative session. Lawmakers
passed the bill with less than 10 days left in the session,
and Baker wound up vetoing it, while making clear he would
have preferred to offer amendments had there been more time.
When the House and Senate sent an identical bill back to him
early in this session, he returned it with his proposed
amendments. The Senate appears willing to incorporate many
of the governor's suggestions but said it plans to hold firm
against some of his more significant proposals.
The Senate also
has plans to act swiftly on legislation that both aids
businesses and workers from a tax standpoint and limits what
will still be significant new employer costs to keep the
state's flooded unemployment benefits system chugging along.
The House on Thursday unanimously adopted the bill, which
would create a paid sick leave program for employees who are
affected by COVID-19 and offer tax breaks on any forgiven
Paycheck Protection Program loans from 2020.
State House News
Service
Friday, March 12, 2021
Advances - Week of March 14, 2021
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
“Where else but
Massachusetts is everything that is not forbidden by law
made mandatory?” asked Chip Ford, executive director
of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “Voting is a right,
therefore not voting is a right as well if that is
someone’s choice.”
I commented on
HD-237, state Representative Dylan Fernandes' (D-Falmouth) bill
titled "An Act Making Voting Obligatory and Increasing Turnout In
Elections" at the request of Beacon Hill Roll Call, which described it
as follows:
This proposal would
require eligible voters to cast a ballot in any November General
Election or face a fine of $15 that would be added to the
non-voter’s state tax liability for each election missed.
Massachusetts is one of the
thirteen original colonies, eventually becoming the sixth state to
ratify the new U.S. Constitution but only after
securing the promise of a specific bill of rights.
Massachusetts long ago proudly boasted of being "the cradle of liberty,"
was the home of the Sons of Liberty, the site of the Boston Tea Party,
and was where "the shot heard 'round the world" was fired that launched
the American Revolution which established a new nation. “Where
else but Massachusetts is everything that is not forbidden by law made
mandatory?” China, North Korea, Iran, or under some other
totalitarian regime's jackboot come to mind.
How far the Bay State has
fallen — the direct consequence of a year-around
"full-time" legislature with far too much idle time for far too many
legislators to waste. Too many of them live to legislate, to
impose structure and control — theirs.
Thanks to more legislators
allegedly seeking to improve that which has been traditionally
successful since the nation's founding, the Legislature now wants to
make "temporary" emergency mail-in voting, intended to get us through
the Wuhan Chinese Virus, permanent even after the pandemic is defeated.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste!" According to a State House
News Service report on Thursday ("Election
Reforms Poised to Extend Through Spring; Stage Set for Debate on
Permanent Mail-In Voting"):
Both branches of the Massachusetts
Legislature have now approved a three-month extension of
pandemic-inspired voting reforms, setting the stage for
a future debate over whether to keep the changes in
place permanently beyond the public health crisis.
Passed unanimously by the Senate
Thursday, the bill (H 73) permits no-excuse mail-in
voting for any municipal or special state elections held
before June 30 and allows cities and towns to hold
in-person early voting periods ahead of those elections.
It also gives municipalities added flexibility if they
choose to reschedule this spring's local elections or
caucuses....
[Secretary
of State William Galvin] and lawmakers have put forward
plans that would make vote-by-mail a permanent feature
in elections, including bills that would also authorize
voters to register and then cast a ballot on the same
day.
One of the bills, filed by Rep.
John Lawn and Sen. Cindy Creem, has almost 90
cosponsors, according to Common Cause Massachusetts
Executive Director Geoff Foster, who said that after the
Legislature's action to expand mail-in and early voting
through the spring it is now "time to look ahead towards
the fall municipal elections and to making these popular
reforms permanent."
Speaker
Ronald Mariano said in February that the House "looks
forward to making vote by mail a permanent way for
residents to exercise their right to vote during and
beyond the pandemic," and House Ways and Means Chairman
Aaron Michlewitz said this month there is a "large
appetite" for making mail-in voting permanent.
Let's see if I've got this
right. They want to switch voting to all mail-in
— then they want to fine you if you don't
vote. Why doesn't someone just propose that they'll simply vote
for you, saving the state the cost for mailing out ballots to everyone
and his brother and you the cost of a penalty fee for not returning it?
How about if we all just show
up on election day and cast our ballots (or not) as we've always done
since the birth of the Commonwealth? No further legislation
required.
The so-called "Millionaires
Tax" or "Tax Fairness Amendment" — the
latest (6th) scheme for opening the door to a graduated income tax in
Massachusetts — has been exposed as just
another bait-and-switch scam. It's been sold for years now as a
means to raise an estimated $2 Billion that will be "earmarked" entirely
for transportation and education spending. But that is not what it
would do, nor is that the plan whatsoever. If voters adopt it, it
will create a nothing more than a "slush fund" that'll be spent any way
the Legislature wishes.
The Boston Herald on Tuesday
reported on the release of a new report by Pioneer Institute ("Massachusetts
millionaires tax would be ‘blank check’ for increased government
spending: report"):
Proponents of a proposed millionaires tax on the fast-track to next
year’s ballot say the measure could bolster education and
transportation funding by $2 billion, but a new
watchdog report warns it could wind up being a “blank check” for
fattening up state government.
“The
Massachusetts surtax doesn’t actually require that the legislature
increase spending on education and transportation,” said Greg
Sullivan, of Pioneer Institute, who co-authored “Lessons for
Massachusetts from California’s ‘Blank Check’ Tax on High Earners”
with Andrew Mikula....
Lawmakers this session are likely to advance a ballot initiative
that would propose a constitutional amendment to impose a 4% surtax
on people earning over $1 million. Lawmakers say the cash would be
earmarked for transportation and education spending, but during a
2019 constitutional convention state legislators rejected two
proposed amendments requiring that the new revenues be directed to
these purposes.
In the press release issued
the same day announcing its "white paper" report, the authors noted in
part (you
can read it in full here):
Advocates claim a proposed 4
percent surtax on high earners will raise nearly $2
billion per year for education and transportation, but
similar tax hikes in other states resulted in highly
discretionary rather than targeted spending, according
to a new report published by Pioneer Institute. That
same result or worse is possible in Massachusetts
because during the 2019 constitutional convention state
legislators rejected — not just one, but two — proposed
amendments requiring that the new revenues be directed
to these purposes.
After a 2012 tax hike in California
aimed to increase education investments, the state
legislature dedicated little more than the minimum
required by law to education and redirected the majority
of the funds to general government operations. The
result was a soaring state payroll.
“The Massachusetts surtax doesn’t
actually require that the legislature increase spending
on education and transportation,” said Greg Sullivan,
who co-authored Lessons for Massachusetts from
California’s “blank check” tax on high earners with
Andrew Mikula. “In California, a separate amendment to
that state’s constitution required that at least 40
percent be spent on education. There is no such
requirement in Massachusetts, meaning overall state
education and transportation funding is likely to remain
essentially flat under the surtax, and could even
decline.” ...
When the proposed graduated surtax
proposal came before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court (SJC) in 2018, the late Chief Justice Ralph Gants
asked counsel for the state Attorney General whether it
was correct that passage of the income tax hike “may or
may not result in any increase in transportation or
education spending.” Counsel responded that the Chief
Justice’s understanding was correct.
The Massachusetts Attorney
General’s counsel submitted a brief to the SJC in 2018
stating that “the Legislature could choose to reduce
funding in specified budget categories from other
sources and replace it with the new surtax revenue.” In
its decision, the court added, “We are not entirely
unaware of the possibility that, as the plaintiffs
argue, funding for education and transportation were
added to the initiative petition as a means to "sweeten
the pot" for voters.”
“This is exactly the flaw that was
revealed when the SJC took up a similar proposal in
2018, and both the Attorney General’s Office and the
late Chief Justice Ralph Gants pointed out that the
measure doesn’t actually require any increase in
education and transportation spending,” said Kevin
Martin, the lead attorney in the 2018 case. “There’s no
reason to believe what happened in California won’t
happen in Massachusetts.”
At the June 2019 constitutional
convention, two amendments (H86-1 and H86-11) sought to
require that new surtax revenues go to education and
transportation. They were rejected handily by state
legislators, 40-156 and 39-154, respectively.
“The rejection of these amendments
leaves Massachusetts without even the minimum funding
requirements California has in place,” noted Pioneer
Institute executive director Jim Stergios. “Through
their votes, the legislature expressed very clearly that
they intend to put the money into the General Fund. It’s
the equivalent of a blank check."
CLT reported on this
bait-and-switch scam back on June 12, 2019 ("'Millionaires Tax'
amendment advanced with lopsided vote"). In
my commentary that day I noted:
. . . Amendment #1
offered by House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-Andover) once again,
as he did in 2016, called out and exposed the deceptive
bait-and-switch intent of this money grab. Again this time around,
when he sought to embed within proposed constitutional amendment the
guarantee that funds raised from it would be spent in addition to
current spending on education and transportation – not in place
of it – he was again thwarted by the Democrat majority. This
proves that the whatever revenue is raised from this money grab will
be quite mobile, fungible, and is intended to be spent on
anything whatsoever at the Legislature's whim –
as stated in the proposed amendment, "subject to appropriation"
by the Legislature:
". . . all
revenues received in accordance with this paragraph shall be
expended, subject to appropriation, only for these
purposes."
. . . Another
election must intervene before the second and final vote occurs, in
the 2021-22 legislative session, before this constitutional
amendment can appear on the 2022 statewide ballot for voters to
ultimately decide. Though in Massachusetts it's highly unlikely,
there remains a distant possibility that a turnover in the
Legislature in the 2020 election can derail this abomination.
Unfortunately, Massachusetts being "The
Bluest State," pigs will likely need to fly first and Hell
freeze over.
This latest scheme is to first
tax the wealthy — then, once a graduated
income tax of any sort has shattered the state constitution's flat-tax
barrier, come for the rest of the taxpayers, one bracket at a time,
until it includes everyone. That has always been the goal, and
socialists never surrender until they get everything they want, which
means everything you have.
The Salem News reported on Friday ("State gets big windfall
from relief package"):
The $1.9 trillion bill, approved by
the Democratic-controlled Congress, includes direct
payments and a jobless-benefit extension, as well as
hundreds of billions of dollars for COVID-19 vaccines
and treatments, schools, state and local governments and
businesses that are still reeling from the economic
fallout of the coronavirus.
"This historic legislation is about
rebuilding the backbone of this country and giving
people in this nation, working people, middle class
folks, people who built the country, a fighting chance,"
Biden said in remarks from the White House.
All told, Massachusetts stands to
get nearly $8 billion in aid when the law is enacted,
according to estimates from the House Oversight
Committee.
At least 37 cities with populations
of more than 50,000 will be getting $1.7 billion in
direct federal aid through the relief package.
"Massachusetts stands to get
nearly $8 billion." With all these free trillions of dollars the
Democrat Congress and President Joe Biden are doling out (borrowed with
interest of course, courtesy of your kids, grandkids and their kids) how
can state governments be anything but thrilled! But there's a
slight catch to the federal government's largesse with other people's
money (isn't there always?): The "clawback"
— states can't reduce their residents taxes until 2024 without a
federal government penalty.
The State House News Service reported on Friday ("Tax Cut
Clawback Looms as New Federal Wildcard; May Affect Cost of Two Beacon
Hill Initiatives"):
The spending law signed this week
by President Joe Biden will deliver over $4.5 billion in
budgetary relief for Massachusetts, but some experts say
it could also wind up doubling the cost of a pair of tax
breaks lawmakers want to extend to small businesses and
low-income workers unemployed over the past year.
A part of the new federal law
intended to discourage states from using billions in
relief funding to finance tax cuts prohibits states from
using federal relief funding to offset a reduction in
state tax collections resulting from a change in state
tax law, including new rebates, deductions or credits.
States that do use federal relief
funds to offset a tax cut "either directly or
indirectly" will be forced to pay back the amount they
used, which in this case could be as much as $225
million....
"There's certainly a fair amount of
uncertainty about the precise scope of the federal
clawback provision, although its intent appears to be to
prevent states from treating the federal assistance as
creating an opportunity to reduce state taxes in any
manner," said Peter Enrich, a law professor at
Northeastern University and a member of the
Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center board of
directors....
On the same day that Biden signed
the historic $1.9 trillion law on Thursday, House
lawmakers on Beacon Hill voted unanimously for a tax and
unemployment insurance rate relief package that would
reduce the tax burden on some small businesses and
low-income workers by more than $200 million.
Fortunately CLT's income tax
rollback finally became fully implemented back down to 5% last year or
the Legislature would have another reason to freeze it once again!
Beacon Hill Senate Republicans
temporarily derailed the Democrats' plan to ram through its major
climate and emission reduction bill last week, and did that ever cause
rare call it "disharmony" among the upper-branch. The News Service
on Thursday reported on this man-bites-dog anomaly ("Republicans Slow
Push on Climate Bill Changes"):
A top
priority of legislative Democrats early this session - to get a
major climate and emission reduction bill passed into law - hit a
snag Thursday when Senate Republicans blocked a vote on the bill
after being given less than a day to review the latest version
drafted by Democratic leaders....
Democrats, including Senate President Karen Spilka and Sen. Michael
Barrett, had hoped to push forward with a vote on Thursday, but
details of the bill were changing throughout the day Wednesday. A
final draft was released to the Senate and the public after 10 p.m.,
affording little time to review how the bill had changed.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr and the two other Republican
members of the Senate wrote to Spilka in the morning asking her to
delay the vote. When she chose not to, Tarr used a procedural motion
available to any senator to postpone consideration of the bill until
at least the next Senate session.
Tarr
said he took the step to ensure "adequate time for the members and
the public to be able to review what is now standing for
consideration by this body," suggesting the Legislature was "under
no particular deadline to be able pass this bill, although we all
feel a great amount of urgency in responding to the issue it seeks
to address."
The
Gloucester Republican noted that it took 330 days between the time
the Senate voted on the initial version of the climate bill in
January 2020 until the first time it reached Baker's desk.
The
delay drew a rebuke from Democrats who accused the Republican leader
of standing in the way of action to address climate change.
Spilka issued a statement describing herself as "profoundly
disappointed" that Republicans blocked a vote, while Ways and Means
Chairman Michael Rodrigues said his disappointment was "bordering on
anger." ...
[Sen.
Michael Barrett], who co-chairs the Committee on Telecommunication,
Utilities and Energy and helped write the bill, described himself as
"dejected" by the day's events.
"We
have done everything we can to make sure that we hear everyone in
Massachusetts and certainly the members of the minority party in
this very chamber," Barrett said. "It is disheartening to realize we
are once again facing the prospect of delay and once again we have
to wrestle with the question of whether we are capable of rising to
the occasion of what we're told is an existential crisis."
Tarr
took exception to charges that he was trying to stall action on
climate change, or asking for something unusual. He said the precise
language of the amendments being recommended had not been previously
debated, despite claims by Democrats that they had. He also pointed
out that the time given to senators to read this final bill was less
than the Senate rules allow before consideration of a conference
committee report.
Kudos to the
remaining three Republican senators for providing at least a
speed bump to more Democrat business as usual, passing bills
nobody's had the time to read before voting in lockstep.
At least they had the weekend to do some reading-up before
passing it today in a 39-1 vote then sending it over to the
House.
There's a lot of additional
news (and reading) below in the full news reports, some of them
excerpted and covered above. You can choose to scroll down and
read them, or not — depending on how much of a
political junkie you are. For a smile though, I recommend
Howie Carr's caustic summary in his Friday column of last week's
milestone: "Nothing to be ‘happy’ about with Massachusetts pandemic
anniversary."
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
Full News Reports Follow
(excerpted above) |
|
Beacon Hill
Roll Call
March 8-12, 2021
Pay Fine For Not Voting
By Bob Katzen
PAY FINE FOR NOT VOTING (HD-237)
– This proposal would require eligible voters to cast a
ballot in any November General Election or face a fine of
$15 that would be added to the non-voter’s state tax
liability for each election missed. The measure also
clarifies that the voter does not have to actually vote for
anyone and is allowed to leave the ballot blank. Another
provision strikes all current deadlines for registering to
vote and allows people to register anytime.
“This bill aims to prompt a discussion on whether voting is
more than a right, and instead a civic duty, much like jury
duty,” said the bill’s sponsor Rep. Dylan Fernandes
(D-Falmouth). “A citizen who does not vote would be assessed
$15 on their yearly tax return, which is less than the civic
duty of paying a parking ticket in many cities and towns in
the commonwealth. The bill is not going to pass this session
and was filed to encourage citizens to think critically
about the value of voting. Should a democratic society value
paying the parking meter on time more than voting?”
“Rep. Fernandes’ legislation is completely misguided,” said
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance. “If you believe politicians should be able to
force the public to vote, then don’t be surprised if the
next law they propose tells you who to vote for. If Rep.
Fernandes’ wants to bring more confidence to the election
process, he should start by voting in favor of more
transparency in the Legislature. The Massachusetts
Legislature is the most opaque legislative body in America,
where even some of their votes in committee are not made
public. He should focus more of his attention to his own
behavior and not those of his constituents.”
“Where else but Massachusetts is everything that is not
forbidden by law made mandatory?” asked Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“Voting is a right, therefore not voting is a right
as well if that is someone’s choice.”
The Boston
Herald
Tuesday, March 9, 2021
Massachusetts millionaires tax would be ‘blank check’ for
increased government spending: report
By Erin Tiernan
Proponents of a proposed millionaires tax on the fast-track
to next year’s ballot say the measure could bolster
education and transportation funding by $2 billion, but a
new
watchdog report warns it could wind up being a “blank
check” for fattening up state government.
“The Massachusetts surtax doesn’t actually require that the
legislature increase spending on education and
transportation,” said Greg Sullivan, of Pioneer Institute,
who co-authored “Lessons for Massachusetts from California’s
‘Blank Check’ Tax on High Earners” with Andrew Mikula.
Lawmakers this session are likely to advance a ballot
initiative that would propose a constitutional amendment to
impose a 4% surtax on people earning over $1 million.
Lawmakers say the cash would be earmarked for transportation
and education spending, but during a 2019 constitutional
convention state legislators rejected two proposed
amendments requiring that the new revenues be directed to
these purposes.
The report revealed a similar 2012 tax hike in California
that required that at least 40% of revenues be spent on
education resulted in the majority of funding being directed
to the general fund.
“The rejection of these amendments leaves Massachusetts
without even the minimum funding requirements California has
in place,” Pioneer Institute executive director Jim Stergios
said. “It’s the equivalent of a blank check.”
Pioneer
Institute
Wednesday, March 9, 2021
Press Release
Study Finds Massachusetts Graduated Income Tax May Be a
“Blank Check”
and Not Increase Funding for Designated Priorities
In California, revenue from a similar tax was diverted to
the general fund, ballooning state employee payroll
Advocates claim a proposed 4 percent surtax on high earners
will raise nearly $2 billion per year for education and
transportation, but similar tax hikes in other states
resulted in highly discretionary rather than targeted
spending, according to a new report published by Pioneer
Institute. That same result or worse is possible in
Massachusetts because during the 2019 constitutional
convention state legislators rejected — not just one, but
two — proposed amendments requiring that the new revenues be
directed to these purposes.
After a 2012 tax hike in California aimed to increase
education investments, the state legislature dedicated
little more than the minimum required by law to education
and redirected the majority of the funds to general
government operations. The result was a soaring state
payroll.
“The Massachusetts surtax doesn’t actually require that the
legislature increase spending on education and
transportation,” said Greg Sullivan, who co-authored Lessons
for Massachusetts from California’s “blank check” tax on
high earners with Andrew Mikula. “In California, a separate
amendment to that state’s constitution required that at
least 40 percent be spent on education. There is no such
requirement in Massachusetts, meaning overall state
education and transportation funding is likely to remain
essentially flat under the surtax, and could even decline.”
In November 2012, California voters adopted Proposition 30,
an income tax hike on high earners, the revenue from which
was to be dedicated to K-12 education and community
colleges. But since it was adopted, annual funding for those
purposes has exceeded California’s pre-existing
constitutional minimum funding requirement by less than
one-tenth of one percent. Over that same period, the number
of teachers in the state increased by just a fraction of a
percentage point.
When the proposed graduated surtax proposal came before the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in 2018, the late
Chief Justice Ralph Gants asked counsel for the state
Attorney General whether it was correct that passage of the
income tax hike “may or may not result in any increase in
transportation or education spending.” Counsel responded
that the Chief Justice’s understanding was correct.
The Massachusetts Attorney General’s counsel submitted a
brief to the SJC in 2018 stating that “the Legislature could
choose to reduce funding in specified budget categories from
other sources and replace it with the new surtax revenue.”
In its decision, the court added, “We are not entirely
unaware of the possibility that, as the plaintiffs argue,
funding for education and transportation were added to the
initiative petition as a means to "sweeten the pot" for
voters.”
“This is exactly the flaw that was revealed when the SJC
took up a similar proposal in 2018, and both the Attorney
General’s Office and the late Chief Justice Ralph Gants
pointed out that the measure doesn’t actually require any
increase in education and transportation spending,” said
Kevin Martin, the lead attorney in the 2018 case. “There’s
no reason to believe what happened in California won’t
happen in Massachusetts.”
At the June 2019 constitutional convention, two amendments
(H86-1 and H86-11) sought to require that new surtax
revenues go to education and transportation. They were
rejected handily by state legislators, 40-156 and 39-154,
respectively.
“The rejection of these amendments leaves Massachusetts
without even the minimum funding requirements California has
in place,” noted Pioneer Institute executive director Jim
Stergios. “Through their votes, the legislature expressed
very clearly that they intend to put the money into the
General Fund. It’s the equivalent of a blank check."
The California state payroll was a major beneficiary of the
funds diverted from K-12 education and community colleges.
According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, while
the number of state employees in Massachusetts increased by
0.3 percent from fiscal 2013 through fiscal 2019, and by an
average of 1.8 percent in the other 48 states, the number of
state employees in California jumped 10.6 percent.
Over the same period, state payroll spending rose 24 percent
in Massachusetts, which was in line with a 24.4 percent
average in the 48 other states. But over that time
California’s payroll spending increased by 50.3 percent.
FULL REPORT
The
Salem News
Friday, March 12, 2021
State gets big windfall from relief package
By Christian M. Wade
Billions of dollars in federal aid will flow into
Massachusetts under a new pandemic relief package signed by
President Joe Biden on Thursday.
The $1.9 trillion bill, approved by the
Democratic-controlled Congress, includes direct payments and
a jobless-benefit extension, as well as hundreds of billions
of dollars for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, schools,
state and local governments and businesses that are still
reeling from the economic fallout of the coronavirus.
"This historic legislation is about rebuilding the backbone
of this country and giving people in this nation, working
people, middle class folks, people who built the country, a
fighting chance," Biden said in remarks from the White
House.
All told, Massachusetts stands to get nearly $8 billion in
aid when the law is enacted, according to estimates from the
House Oversight Committee.
At least 37 cities with populations of more than 50,000 will
be getting $1.7 billion in direct federal aid through the
relief package.
Locally, Lawrence will receive more than $42.8 million;
Haverhill $25.8 million; Salem $27.3 million; Gloucester
$17.2 million and Peabody will get $11 million, according to
a breakdown compiled by the National League of Cities.
Other communities would get direct funding based on their
population.
A key provision of the bill is a $1,400 payment to
individuals making up to $75,000 a year, or households with
joint filers making up to $150,000 a year.
Dependents of eligible families will also receive $1,400
checks.
Meanwhile, the federal child tax credit will increase from
$2,000 to $3,000 for dependents ages 6 to 17, and $3,600 for
children under 6.
The maximum deduction for child care will also climb to 50%
of qualifying expenses, up to $4,000 for one child and
$8,000 for two or more children, under the changes.
Current law allows for a credit of up to 35% of child care
expenses of $3,000 for one child or $6,000 for multiple
children.
Massachusetts schools will also get a windfall as they
prepare to open for full-time instruction. The aid includes
$1.8 billion for elementary and secondary schools and $825
million for colleges and universities.
Republican lawmakers opposed the massive relief package as a
job-killer that was loaded with Democratic pet projects that
will do little to reopen schools or businesses shuttered for
the pandemic.
They also complained about the bill's price tag, which they
argue will hold back economic recovery.
But U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Salem, who voted for the
measure in the House, said the relief package will "get
shots in people’s arms, Americans back to work, money in
people’s pockets, and kids back in school."
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Cambridge, echoed
those sentiments in a statement, saying "it's a powerful
bill that will make a real difference."
"Democrats have passed a historic relief package that will
make a real difference to expand vaccines, safely reopen
schools, and help Massachusetts families make ends meet,"
she said.
Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts
Municipal Association, called the relief package a "game
changer" for the state and local governments that have
waited for more relief as they struggle with
pandemic-related costs.
"This bill will provide critical aid to every city and town
in Massachusetts to stabilize essential services, inject
real dollars into our communities to protect individuals,
families and businesses hit hardest by COVID-19, and invest
in a powerful economic recovery all across the state,"
Beckwith said.
— Christian M. Wade covers
the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media
Group’s newspapers and websites.
State House
News Service
Friday, March 12, 2021
Mass. Unemployment Rate Dips Below 8 Percent
By Chris Lisinski
The unemployment rate in Massachusetts fell to 7.8 percent
in January, and revisions to 2020 estimates have pinpointed
the highest spike of pandemic-era joblessness to last April,
labor officials announced Friday.
The January rate dropped 0.6 percentage points from the
revised December rate of 8.4 percent, and it stands 1.5
percentage points higher than the U.S. joblessness rate, the
state Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development
said.
Despite continued improvement from double-digit figures in
the early months of the COVID-19 crisis, the unemployment
rate in Massachusetts remains more than two and a half times
higher than it did before the virus upended public life.
Businesses reported adding 35,500 jobs in January, according
to federal data based on a survey of employers. From May to
January, the state added slightly more than half of the
roughly 690,000 positions that evaporated last March and
April.
Friday's release also revised the monthly data estimates for
2020. Labor officials now say the unemployment rate peaked
in Massachusetts at 16.4 percent in April, a change from the
previously reported high of 17.7 percent in June.
The revised unemployment rates steadily declined from April
to 15.3 percent in May, 14.8 percent in June, 9.8 percent in
July, 9.3 percent in August, 8.9 percent in September, 8.5
percent in October, 8.4 percent in November and 8.4 percent
in December.
On Thursday, the House unanimously approved legislation that
includes an unemployment insurance rate schedule freeze and
borrowing authorization to help manage costs of the
unprecedented surge in joblessness, and unemployment claims,
during the pandemic.
The Boston
Herald
Friday, March 12, 2021
Nothing to be ‘happy’ about with Massachusetts pandemic
anniversary
By Howie Carr
Happy Anniversary!
Happy Anniversary?!?!?
That’s how Gov. Charlie Baker on Wednesday commemorated the
first anniversary of his signing of the declaration
declaring an “emergency” over a seasonal virus — with a
gleeful shout-out of “Happy Anniversary!” to his assorted
adoring coat holders and payroll patriots assembled at a
factory in West Bridgewater.
Happy Anniversary?
Tell it to the scores of dead at the Holyoke Soldiers Home.
Happy Anniversary to the 8,707 casualties in the nursing
homes regulated by the state’s pathetically incompetent
Department of Public Health — those dead still represent a
majority of the 16,176 deaths officially blamed on COVID-19
in Massachusetts.
Of course Baker’s amen chorus in the Boston media gave his
jaw-dropping “Happy Anniversary” shout-out a good leaving
alone, stressing instead his alleged tearing up as he
discussed … whatever.
But here is the real money quote from his sermon to the
faithful, discussing the (alleged) greater availability of
vaccinations for more people:
“To our health care workers, our first responders, our
long-term care workers and so many others in Massachusetts
who were looking for it, uh, this is really in some
respects, uh, a very special moment and a happy anniversary
in some ways for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
A very special moment and a happy anniversary in some ways!
Is that how you’ll remember this disastrous last year?
The author of this calamitous, largely avoidable catastrophe
was chuckling, giggling, as he brought up the very special
moment:
“So um, this is uh the one-year anniversary of the signing
of the (inaudible chuckling and off-mike comments) of the
executive order here in Massachusetts that put the
Commonwealth into a state of emergency.”
Surely he meant to say, a state of hysteria. Or panic.
On this happy anniversary, let’s consider some of
Massachusetts’ other happy statistics from the 15 days to
flatten the curve, which is now entering its second year:
After ranking third for most of the year among the 50 states
in deaths per 100,000 population, Massachusetts now stands
fourth in fatalities at 240 per 100,000, trailing only New
Jersey (268) New York (250) and Rhode Island (242).
Neighboring Vermont’s death rate: 34, compared with
Massachusetts’ 242. New Hampshire has 87 deaths per 100,000,
Maine has 54.
Happy Anniversary, Charlie! When are you getting your Emmy
or your seven-figure book deal like Cuomo’s? Or at the very
least, a Profiles in Courage Award, for decimating your
state’s economy?
One of every eight nursing home residents in Massachusetts
is dead. Given New York’s fraudulent numbers for all those
months, it’s hard to know whose mismanagement killed more
nursing home residents – Gov. Andrew Cuomo or the man
Dementia Joe Biden calls “Charlie Parker.”
For two months last summer, Massachusetts had the highest
unemployment rate in the nation, even worse than shut-down
resort-destination states like Nevada and Hawaii.
How many times has Charlie Parker gone out in front of the
cameras, his beta-male voice cracking like a pubescent
teenager’s, slamming his fist on the podium, fingering his
wedding ring, demanding that everyone follow his
preposterous orders or YOU WILL ALL DIE!
Really, Charlie?
The state keeps changing its COVID-19 dashboard, downplaying
or even eliminating statistics and charts that don’t advance
the state-sanctioned hysteria, but here are a few numbers to
illustrate who’s really at risk.
Since Aug. 12, according to Parker’s own numbers, 75
Massachusetts residents under the age of 30 are said to have
died of the virus.
Meanwhile, 8,575 over the age of 80 have perished, and
another 3,300 between the ages of 70 and 79.
Put another way: under the age of 50, 390 are dead. Over the
age of 50, 14,435.
For that, he crushed an entire state. Forty percent of the
state’s restaurants are gone forever. Only three states in
the Union lost a higher percentage of jobs than
Maskachusetts.
Happy Anniversary!
Charlie, of course, hasn’t missed a single paycheck during
his brutal year-long dictatorship — $185,000 a year, plus
that very sweet $65,000-a-year housing allowance.
He tried to shut down every kind of gathering, even youth
hockey and Little League baseball. But rioting, looting and
arson in Boston in late May, Parker said, was okay, because
it was “mostly peaceful protests.”
Except, I guess, for the thugs setting fire to Boston police
cruisers and finally opening fire on the cops on Tremont
Street.
Charlie didn’t care. Neither did any his hacks. Most of them
have been on “virtual” vacation for the last year – happy
anniversary for a year-long vacation with pay.
By not working, they’re virtue signaling. They care all
right… about keeping this scam going, forever if possible.
Happy Anniversary!
State House
News Service
Thursday, March 11, 2021
House Aid Bill Addresses Solvency of Unemployment Fund
Other Highlights: Paid Emergency Leave, Tax Credits
By Chris Lisinski
The Massachusetts House unanimously approved a wide-ranging
tax relief, paid emergency sick leave and unemployment
system funding bill Thursday that would soften jobless aid
insurance premium hikes set to hit businesses in the coming
weeks.
Both laid-off workers and employers stand to gain access to
tax breaks under the bill (H 89), which is built on a Gov.
Charlie Baker proposal aimed at stabilizing the state's
unemployment system and also includes provisions such as
creation of a paid sick leave program for employees who are
affected by COVID-19 and tax breaks on any forgiven Paycheck
Protection Program loans from 2020.
The bill would freeze a rate schedule, thereby imposing
smaller increases in unemployment taxes businesses pay in
2021 and 2022. It would also authorize $7 billion of
borrowing to keep the depleted unemployment fund solvent and
pay back federal loans, plus impose a separate surcharge on
businesses to cover federal interest.
House Speaker Ron Mariano told reporters after the bill's
passage that "the thrust of the bill is always about getting
people back to work."
"We're trying to help small businesses get back on their
feet," Mariano said. "The more money we can keep in and
under the control of the small business owners, the better
off we're all going to be. It allows them to hire more
people with the freeze in the rate, the forgiveness of the
PPP stuff allows them to retain capital. All of this goes
into the hiring back of employees."
The House voted 155-0 in favor of the bill. Four lawmakers
-- Republican Reps. F. Jay Barrows of Mansfield, Angelo
D'Emilia of Bridgewater, and Donald Wong of Saugus as well
as independent Rep. Susannah Whipps of Athol -- voted
present.
Senate leaders expect to take the bill up next week and have
already indicated their support.
The state's unemployment system is funded by contributions
from businesses, which can scale up depending on how often
an employer's workers seek the aid.
COVID-19 and the widespread changes to public life it
wrought created a tidal wave of joblessness, spiking at a
17.7 percent statewide unemployment rate last June. The
demand wiped out the unemployment insurance trust fund,
which cratered from a balance of $1.6 billion in February
2020 to $2.2 billion in the red by year's end.
In its most recent monthly report, the state Department of
Unemployment Assistance projected the trust fund will post
year-end deficits of $4.7 billion in 2021, nearly $5 billion
in 2022, $4 billion in 2023, and $2.9 billion in 2024.
That dire outlook is set to trigger a shift in the tax rate
schedule that, without action, would push the average
per-employee cost on businesses from $544 in 2020 to $866 in
2021, a nearly 60 percent jump.
The legislation would freeze the rate schedule in 2021 and
2022, settling the average per-employee cost at $635 in 2021
and $665 in 2022, according to the Associated Industries of
Massachusetts.
It would also authorize the state to bond up to $7 billion
to keep benefits flowing and pay back the more than $2.2
billion the state has borrowed from the federal government
for unemployment so far.
Interest rates on municipal bonds are lower than the 2.27
percent rate that will be due on the federal loans, and
supporters say the step will allow Massachusetts to save
money in the long run.
"While unemployment has been coming down, certainly compared
to where it was back in June of last year, we still
definitely have some challenges ahead of us, and bonding
that money is going to give us some flexibility of not
putting it all on businesses immediately," said House Ways
and Means Committee Chair Rep. Aaron Michlewitz.
Businesses would also face a new surcharge, in the form of
an excise tax on employee wages, through December 2022 to
help repay interest due in September on the federal loans.
Rep. Josh Cutler, co-chair of the Labor and Workforce
Development Committee, told the News Service the surcharge
would result in an average cost of $57 per employee in 2021
and $66 per employee in 2022.
"Even with this additional employer surcharge, businesses in
Massachusetts will save money as a result of our action
today," Cutler, a Duxbury Democrat, said on the House floor.
The bill also includes several other major sections.
It would create a tax credit available to those who received
unemployment benefits and have household incomes below 200
percent of the federal poverty level, and waive penalties
for any missed tax payments on those benefits last year. The
total tax credit is worth $30 million for the 2020 tax year
and $20 million for 2021.
Businesses would also be exempt from needing to pay state
taxes on forgiven federal Paycheck Protection Program loans,
a step that Republican lawmakers have highlighted in recent
weeks as important relief.
"When a lot of the businesses were requesting PPP loans,
they were in the midst of surviving. They weren't thinking
about next year," Michlewitz, a North End Democrat, told
reporters. "They weren't thinking about what tax decision
they'd have to make in the future. They were thinking about
how they'd stay open in the midst of an economic shutdown.
In order to protect these small businesses and allow them to
get back to where they were, short-term and long-term, the
loan forgiveness here and tax forgiveness here is an
appropriate step to be taking."
A year into the pandemic, the House included language
creating an emergency COVID-19 paid sick leave program in
the bill making benefits available to employees who contract
COVID-19, need to quarantine, or must care for a family
member affected by the illness.
Full-time workers could access 40 hours of paid time off,
while leave for part-time workers would vary based on their
schedules. Employers with fewer than 500 workers can access
federal tax credits to help cover the costs.
Before approving the bill, the House rejected a proposed
amendment from Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven of Somerville that
would have offered two weeks of COVID-19 leave to affected
employees.
Members also voted 152-4 to shoot down another Uyterhoeven
amendment aimed at what she described as preventing
"double-dip" tax breaks for businesses that received PPP
loans.
Baker first filed a version of the bill including only the
UI changes in December, then re-filed his proposal in
January with the start of the new session. Major business
groups such as AIM and the National Federation of
Independent Businesses supported that measure.
"By passing this legislation, we will have the ability to
use a much less expensive financing mechanism to borrow
money and pay back the fund," Baker said about the bill
Wednesday.
The Republican governor has not taken a public stance on
sections that Democratic leaders added into the package,
such as the COVID-19 emergency paid sick leave or the tax
credits for unemployed workers.
The House vote came after Senate Republicans delayed action
on a revamped climate bill, saying that passage of the
relief bill to prevent PPP loans from being taxed should
"take place immediately" before other matters.
"Absent action by the legislature, these businesses will be
forced to pay substantial amounts in additional taxes
through tax returns now due on March 15, rather than putting
these dollars to work in their struggle to survive and
continue to employ the thousands of Massachusetts residents
the Payroll Protection Program was designed to protect,"
Sens. Bruce Tarr of Gloucester, Ryan Fattman of Sutton, and
Patrick O'Connor of Weymouth wrote. "Failure to act in a
timely way will cause incalculable hardships for employers
and employees in Massachusetts."
State House
News Service
Friday, March 12, 2021
Tax Cut Clawback Looms as New Federal Wildcard
May Affect Cost of Two Beacon Hill Initiatives
By Matt Murphy
The spending law signed this week by President Joe Biden
will deliver over $4.5 billion in budgetary relief for
Massachusetts, but some experts say it could also wind up
doubling the cost of a pair of tax breaks lawmakers want to
extend to small businesses and low-income workers unemployed
over the past year.
A part of the new federal law intended to discourage states
from using billions in relief funding to finance tax cuts
prohibits states from using federal relief funding to offset
a reduction in state tax collections resulting from a change
in state tax law, including new rebates, deductions or
credits.
States that do use federal relief funds to offset a tax cut
"either directly or indirectly" will be forced to pay back
the amount they used, which in this case could be as much as
$225 million.
House and Senate Democratic leaders say they're not worried
about being penalized under the rule if an advancing state
tax relief bill becomes law, but some tax law experts said
the clawback provision puts Massachusetts at risk of seeing
the cost of the new tax breaks climb to $450 million.
"There's certainly a fair amount of uncertainty about the
precise scope of the federal clawback provision, although
its intent appears to be to prevent states from treating the
federal assistance as creating an opportunity to reduce
state taxes in any manner," said Peter Enrich, a law
professor at Northeastern University and a member of the
Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center board of directors.
Enrich, who worked as counsel in Gov. Michael Dukakis's
budget office, said a definitive answer will likely have to
wait until there is clear guidance from U.S. Treasury
Secretary Janet Yellen, but he said "it certainly would
appear to apply to the provision in the state legislation
providing a new tax credit for low-income unemployment
beneficiaries."
On the same day that Biden signed the historic $1.9 trillion
law on Thursday, House lawmakers on Beacon Hill voted
unanimously for a tax and unemployment insurance rate relief
package that would reduce the tax burden on some small
businesses and low-income workers by more than $200 million.
That relief would come, in part, from an exemption from
state income taxes on loans made to small businesses through
the federal Personal Paycheck Protection program that were
forgiven by the government.
While corporations in Massachusetts that received PPP grants
are already exempt from paying taxes on those funds by state
and federal law, the new bill would also allow smaller
"pass-through" entities whose profits are taxed as the
owner's personal income to continue to deduct payroll and
other expenses paid for with federal aid.
Critics have described this as a "double-dip" because
businesses are taking a tax deduction for something they
used the federal government's money to pay for, but
proponents say employers, especially small business, can use
the help.
Democratic leaders coupled the PPP tax exemption and
unemployment insurance rate relief for employers with a new
tax credit for workers earning less than 200 percent of the
federal poverty level. Eligible workers would be entitled to
a tax credit of up to 5 percent of their unemployment
benefit earnings in 2020.
Estimates of how much tax revenue the state would be leaving
on the table by exempting PPP grants range from the
administration's projection of $150 million to the
Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center's $175 million.
The unemployment tax credit would be capped at $30 million
in 2020 and $20 million in 2021.
House Ways and Means Chairman Aaron Michlewitz said the
conversation on Beacon Hill about exempting PPP grants and
creating a new tax credit for low-income workers began
before Democrats in the U.S. Senate slipped the clawback
provision into the stimulus bill.
"There are guidelines that are supposed to be set by the
Treasury and we will monitor those, but we feel this is not
going to put us in jeopardy," Michlewitz said.
Both Michlewitz and Senate Ways and Means Chairman Michael
Rodrigues pointed out that potential revenue from taxes on
forgiven PPP loans was not included in the tax estimate
developed by lawmakers and the Baker administration in
January, and were not counted on to balance the governor's
fiscal 2022 budget proposal.
"We are still reviewing the impacts of the American Rescue
Plan that President Biden signed into law today and what it
will mean for the Commonwealth. However, because tax revenue
collections for this fiscal year have been trending
positively and performing better than benchmarks, the relief
package currently moving through the Legislature, which was
in development prior to the federal legislation being
finalized, does not rely on expected federal funds to pay
for the provisions relative to PPP and the unemployment tax
credit," Rodrigues said in a statement.
The tax law change as it relates to forgiven PPP loans would
also bring Massachusetts into full conformity with federal
tax law, giving state lawmakers more confidence that the
Biden administration won't seek to penalize the state.
"I'm confident the moves we are making, A, we can afford
and, B, are the right ones for the commonwealth in terms of
the COVID relief discussion," Michlewitz said.
Doug Howgate, executive vice president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, said how the Treasury chooses to
enforce the clawback provision is a big question mark.
"The conditions on receipt of these funds is something
everyone needs to pay close attention to, and I think we're
going to [be] waiting a little bit on the federal
government," Howgate said.
An official with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform
said it was their office's belief that the provision
developed by Senate Democrats was intended to "prevent the
relief dollars from being used on tax cuts that
disproportionately benefit higher wage earners." That
committee is chaired by New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn
Maloney.
The Tax Foundation has also said that it envisions multiple
scenarios under which states could change tax laws over the
next two years and find themselves either in compliance with
or running afoul of the new law.
Paul Craney, of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said he
opposes the restriction on tax cuts, which he said could be
used to stimulate private sector growth in some states, and
he does not believe that the federal government will try to
penalize Massachusetts for exempting PPP grants from state
income taxes.
"It's hard to get your head around it because it all
happened so quick, but when Congress and the previous
president were designing the PPP loan it wasn't designed to
be a taxable source of revenue for states," Craney said. "I
think the state should follow a path that these are forgiven
for all businesses, including pass-throughs, and I don't
think the federal government is going to penalize them for
doing so."
State House
News Service
Thursday, March 11, 2021
Republicans Slow Push on Climate Bill Changes
Late Evening Release of Details Offered Short Review Window
By Matt Murphy
A top priority of legislative Democrats early this session -
to get a major climate and emission reduction bill passed
into law - hit a snag Thursday when Senate Republicans
blocked a vote on the bill after being given less than a day
to review the latest version drafted by Democratic leaders.
The temporary setback comes more than a month after Gov.
Charlie Baker returned the climate bill, which he vetoed
last session, with a variety of amendments, many of which
wound up being incorporated into the newest bill. The bill
would, among other things, require Massachusetts to become
carbon neutral by 2050.
Democrats, including Senate President Karen Spilka and Sen.
Michael Barrett, had hoped to push forward with a vote on
Thursday, but details of the bill were changing throughout
the day Wednesday. A final draft was released to the Senate
and the public after 10 p.m., affording little time to
review how the bill had changed.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr and the two other
Republican members of the Senate wrote to Spilka in the
morning asking her to delay the vote. When she chose not to,
Tarr used a procedural motion available to any senator to
postpone consideration of the bill until at least the next
Senate session.
Tarr said he took the step to ensure "adequate time for the
members and the public to be able to review what is now
standing for consideration by this body," suggesting the
Legislature was "under no particular deadline to be able
pass this bill, although we all feel a great amount of
urgency in responding to the issue it seeks to address."
The Gloucester Republican noted that it took 330 days
between the time the Senate voted on the initial version of
the climate bill in January 2020 until the first time it
reached Baker's desk.
The delay drew a rebuke from Democrats who accused the
Republican leader of standing in the way of action to
address climate change.
Spilka issued a statement describing herself as "profoundly
disappointed" that Republicans blocked a vote, while Ways
and Means Chairman Michael Rodrigues said his disappointment
was "bordering on anger."
"Generations of Massachusetts residents are calling on us,
as their elected representatives, to act boldly and quickly
on climate change, which threatens our planet, our
livelihoods, our economy and our future," Spilka said.
Barrett, who co-chairs the Committee on Telecommunication,
Utilities and Energy and helped write the bill, described
himself as "dejected" by the day's events.
"We have done everything we can to make sure that we hear
everyone in Massachusetts and certainly the members of the
minority party in this very chamber," Barrett said. "It is
disheartening to realize we are once again facing the
prospect of delay and once again we have to wrestle with the
question of whether we are capable of rising to the occasion
of what we're told is an existential crisis."
Tarr took exception to charges that he was trying to stall
action on climate change, or asking for something unusual.
He said the precise language of the amendments being
recommended had not been previously debated, despite claims
by Democrats that they had. He also pointed out that the
time given to senators to read this final bill was less than
the Senate rules allow before consideration of a conference
committee report.
"I know that there may be some who would try to blur the
line here and suggest that wanting time to look at something
is tantamount to opposing an initiative. That is not the
case," Tarr said.
It's unclear when Democratic leaders will try again to pass
the bill, but Spilka said it would be "swift." Speaker Ron
Mariano and Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
Committee Co-Chair Rep. Jeff Roy said the House would be
ready to vote "quickly" after the Senate.
Spilka spokesman Antonio Caban said the plan was for the
Senate to meet next on Monday in a formal session.
In addition to requiring Massachusetts to become a net-zero
carbon polluter by 2050, the bill would set interim emission
reduction requirements, require the development of a new
opt-in municipal building code encouraging net-zero
construction, impose energy efficiency requirements on new
appliances and require the purchase of an additional 2,400
megawatts of offshore wind.
Baker had expressed concerns that the bill's 2030 emission
target of 50 percent below 1990 levels was too aggressive
and unnecessary to meet the 2050 reduction requirements, and
he shared the worries of the construction industry that the
new building code requirements could stall housing
production.
The newest Senate version of the bill rejected the
governor's amendment to allow him to set a more flexible
2030 emission level, and "net-zero" as part of the new
stretch energy building code.
Details of the building code changes, however, were changing
throughout the day Wednesday. After Barrett said the final
deal incorporated the governor's recommendation that
municipal building codes around the state be uniform by
2028, the version released later that night did not include
the deadline to standardize the new energy code.
Senate Republicans on Thursday also recommended prioritizing
a vote on PPP grant tax forgiveness before the climate bill,
citing the March 15 deadline for corporations to file their
taxes.
"Because of the severity of those hardships and the current
tax filing deadline, passage of this legislation should
clearly be prioritized over other matters and should take
place immediately, particularly regarding the tax
component," Tarr and Sens. Ryan Fattman and Patrick O'Connor
wrote to Senate leadership.
The tax exemption has been packaged as part of a larger bill
before the House on Thursday that would also limit
unemployment insurance rate increases on businesses, extend
a tax credit to low-income worker collecting unemployment
benefits and offer additional paid sick leave for workers
needing time off due to COVID-19.
State House
News Service
Thursday, March 11, 2021
Election Reforms Poised to Extend Through Spring
Stage Set for Debate on Permanent Mail-In Voting
By Katie Lannan
Both branches of the Massachusetts Legislature have now
approved a three-month extension of pandemic-inspired voting
reforms, setting the stage for a future debate over whether
to keep the changes in place permanently beyond the public
health crisis.
Passed unanimously by the Senate Thursday, the bill (H 73)
permits no-excuse mail-in voting for any municipal or
special state elections held before June 30 and allows
cities and towns to hold in-person early voting periods
ahead of those elections. It also gives municipalities added
flexibility if they choose to reschedule this spring's local
elections or caucuses.
Provisions adopted last year to allow early voting by mail
and in-person ahead of municipal elections, aimed at
ensuring voters feel safe casting ballots during the
COVID-19 pandemic, are set to lapse March 31, and Sen. Jason
Lewis said more than 200 towns are holding their local
elections between April 1 and the end of June.
"These voter options have been critical, as we know, during
the pandemic to enable all voters to safely and conveniently
exercise their right to vote, and we've seen the significant
impact that they've had on increasing access to the ballot,"
Lewis said during the Senate's deliberations, citing high
voter turnout in the primary and general elections held last
September and November, respectively.
The House passed its version of the bill on March 1, moving
it swiftly from the House Ways and Means Committee to the
floor and onto the Senate without a public hearing. After
receiving the bill last week, the Senate Ways and Means
Committee solicited testimony, and Chairman Michael
Rodrigues said his panel received more than 145 comments.
As a result of that testimony, Rodrigues said, the Senate
amended the bill to include language allowing voters to
request and receive accommodations if they have a disability
that makes it difficult or impossible for them to access a
paper mail-in ballot. The House agreed to the Senate's
amendment later in the day.
Rodrigues, a Westport Democrat, predicted there will be
"many more robust conversations and debate" about how to
make the voting reforms permanent. As part of those
conversations, he said there would be more detailed
discussion about how to make sure people with disabilities
can exercise their right to vote.
Sen. Ryan Fattman, a Sutton Republican who, with GOP Reps.
Nicholas Boldyga and Marc Lombardo, has written to Secretary
of State William Galvin posing a series of questions about
mail-in balloting in the 2020 elections, said he appreciated
the public input process.
"I personally look at this bill and say, you know, we have a
pandemic going on, there is a consideration to these towns
in allowing them to have the appropriate adjustment to make
sure that the residents are safe and allowing the boards of
selectmen and the town councils and the select boards to
make sure that they follow suit on that," Fattman said. "But
I want to expound upon and be careful of ... is, there's
been a lot of sort of pronouncements and preludes to having
no-excuse mail-in balloting be permanent, in perpetuity,
forever. And I think there's a lot of questions that still
need to be answered before we start making those
pronouncements and guaranteeing that."
Fattman said that he's concerned that roughly 17,800 mail-in
ballots were rejected in last September's primary and that
some voters reported never receiving their ballots or
missing deadlines to turn in their ballot.
Galvin and lawmakers have put forward plans that would make
vote-by-mail a permanent feature in elections, including
bills that would also authorize voters to register and then
cast a ballot on the same day.
One of the bills, filed by Rep. John Lawn and Sen. Cindy
Creem, has almost 90 cosponsors, according to Common Cause
Massachusetts Executive Director Geoff Foster, who said that
after the Legislature's action to expand mail-in and early
voting through the spring it is now "time to look ahead
towards the fall municipal elections and to making these
popular reforms permanent."
Speaker Ronald Mariano said in February that the House
"looks forward to making vote by mail a permanent way for
residents to exercise their right to vote during and beyond
the pandemic," and House Ways and Means Chairman Aaron
Michlewitz said this month there is a "large appetite" for
making mail-in voting permanent.
The shorter-term extension of vote by mail is now before
Gov. Charlie Baker after final votes in the House and Senate
late Thursday afternoon.
Baker voted by mail in last fall's state primary and general
election. After September's primary, Baker said mail-in
voting "worked just fine" in Massachusetts and other states
throughout the country.
In October, he did not directly answer when asked if he
would support an expanded vote-by-mail system that lasted
beyond the pandemic. Baker did say then that he supported
the July 2020 law's system in which voters are mailed an
application to request a mail-in ballot.
"I support the application process. I don't support 'just
send ballots to everybody everywhere.' I have friends who
get ballots from New Jersey who haven't lived there in 10
years. I think that's a really dumb way to do this," Baker
said after an Oct. 27 press conference. "I think the
application process, as I have said before feels to me like
absentee balloting on steroids, I think is a really
effective way to get it done."
Election reforms have also been an action item on Capitol
Hill. Sweeping legislation that U.S. House Democrats passed
last week includes provisions around automatic and same-day
voter registration, along with expanded early and mail-in
voting and a host of other measures aimed at boosting ballot
access.
Its supporters say the bill would counteract policies being
pursued in some state Legislatures to tighten voter laws, in
many cases driven by the 2020 election results and false
claims by former President Donald Trump of voter fraud.
Critics of the bill describe it as a federal overreach into
how states conduct their elections.
State House
News Service
Friday, March 12, 2021
Weekly Roundup - One and Done?
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Katie Lannan
Yesterday was March 11, the first day mass vaccination site
signups opened to Massachusetts teachers, the last day --
before a pre-registration system went live Friday -- that
thousands of appointments at those sites would be released
all at once and swiftly snatched up in a stressful scramble,
and the day President Biden said there'd be enough COVID-19
vaccine doses for all American adults by the end of May.
Here in the infinite time loop that is daily life in a
yearlong (so far) global pandemic, where the length of days
and months can seem completely arbitrary and divorced from
any traditional structure, yesterday also feels like it
could have been March 11, 2020, the day President Trump
restricted travel from Europe, the World Health Organization
officially called it a pandemic, the NBA suspended its
season and Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson announced they'd
contracted the coronavirus.
It was a day earlier that, in Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie
Baker declared the state of emergency that still influences
most activity.
"I have to say -- well, first of all, I wasn't expecting
this," an emotional Baker said, marking the order's
anniversary during a press conference Wednesday at an N-95
mask manufacturing facility.
Reflections on the past year pervaded the week for many who
recalled their pre-pandemic "last" -- day in the office or
at school, night out with friends, live concert, restaurant
meal, trip on an airplane or public transit.
Despite the disorienting feeling of living in two years at
once, in some ways, the month is marching on in a modified
version of normal. Baker is sporting his annual charity buzz
cut, part of Granite Telecommunications' "Saving by Shaving"
fundraiser, and Sen. Nick Collins is still planning to host
Boston's St. Patrick's Day breakfast next weekend, albeit
virtually.
And as the sun comes out and temperatures rise, there's also
been a springtime stirring in the Legislature.
The House and Senate on Thursday sent Baker a bill that
would allow the more than 200 towns with municipal elections
this spring to again offer the early mail-in and in-person
voting options adopted last year.
As Biden signed a $1.9 trillion stimulus-and-more spending
bill into law, the Massachusetts House approved a
state-level relief package that aims to buoy businesses,
workers and the state's strained unemployment trust fund
all.
Top House and Senate Democrats announced that plan together.
Quick passage is expected in the Senate, where Republicans
say exempting forgiven Paycheck Protection Program loans to
small businesses from state taxes -- one component of the
bill -- should be the body's top priority as a March 15
tax-filing deadline looms.
After sending Senate President Karen Spilka a note Thursday
morning saying he and the other two members of his caucus
would be ready to block any legislation that wasn't PPP
tax-related, Minority Leader Bruce Tarr did just that, using
a parliamentary move to keep the Senate from taking up a
climate policy bill that would lock the state into its goal
of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
It's just the latest roadblock for the so-called climate
roadmap bill, which has been floating around the Legislature
in various forms since the pre-COVID days of February 2020.
Tarr objected to the fact that the latest version of the
bill, a redraft by the Senate's Committee on Bills in Third
Reading that incorporates some of the amendments Baker
wanted, emerged for review after 10 p.m. Wednesday ahead of
an expected Thursday vote.
Baker's amendments had been sitting before the committee for
a month before suddenly reaching the floor, and senators
said there have been talks underway with environmental
advocates and the business communities. None of those
discussions have been in the form of a public hearing.
Democrats said the bill's provisions had been vetted -- and
in many cases, already voted upon -- over the course of the
past year.
Sen. Marc Pacheco, among the senators to voice dismay at the
delay and to describe an urgent need for action, also
brought up what he said was some exciting news on the
renewable energy front: a completed federal review of the
Vineyard Wind I offshore wind farm.
While the Biden-era Department of Interior made quick work
of its Vineyard Wind analysis, the Department of Labor is
still waiting for a confirmation vote on its new secretary,
more than two months after Biden nominated Boston Mayor
Marty Walsh for the post.
Two weeks ago, Baker signed a new law canceling the special
mayoral election that Boston would have been required to
hold if Walsh resigned before March 5. That law is now moot,
with Walsh still on the job and future acting Mayor Kim
Janey waiting in the wings of the Eagle Room.
If the secretary-designee were looking for labor pools close
to home to dip a toe in while waiting to join his
already-migrated chief of staff in Washington, there's no
shortage of issues on that front to wade into.
Nurses at Worcester's St. Vincent Hospital, still at odds
with Tenet Healthcare over staffing levels, launched a
strike on Monday. While state officials are considering what
work might look like post-COVID, they're also estimating
that about 250,000 of the jobs lost here will stay gone,
permanently. Behind in their road-maintenance efforts after
one pandemic spring, municipal officials (who would still
like to see the state pass a multi-year road repair funding
bill, with more money) are facing high labor costs as they
compete with housing developers for contractors.
Then there's the teachers unions.
Baker and teachers unions have been at odds for a while,
disagreeing on the best approach to school reopenings,
educator vaccinations and this year's MCAS exams, to name a
few.
The latest spark ignited Tuesday when Education Commissioner
Jeff Riley exercised his new authority to decide when
schools and districts can no longer teach students through
hybrid or remote instruction, setting an April 5 deadline to
have elementary schoolers back in classrooms full-time,
followed by an April 28 return for middle schoolers.
The state has set aside four days when its seven
mass-vaccination sites will only offer first doses
appointments for K-12 and early educators and school staff
-- March 27, April 3, April 10 and April 11.
Massachusetts Teachers Association President Merrie Najimy
called the plans for repopulating classrooms "poorly timed,"
saying many educators would not be vaccinated by April 5.
She reiterated her union's call for the administration to
support local vaccine clinics over the mass sites and to
allow first responders to immunize teachers in schools.
A rebuke followed from Baker senior advisor Tim Buckley, who
accused the teachers unions of demanding the state "take
hundreds of thousands of vaccines away from the sickest,
oldest and most vulnerable residents in Massachusetts and
divert them to the unions' members, 95% of which are under
age 65."
Najimy and fellow union heads Beth Kontos and Jessica Tang
fired back, calling it "sad, and frankly, reckless that on
the one-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic shutting
down our state, Governor Charlie Baker is pitting one
vulnerable group against another."
The rising tensions come as legislative budget writers are
gearing up to delve into the education spending proposals
contained in Baker's $45.6 billion budget for fiscal 2022 at
a Tuesday hearing. On that front, the teachers unions and
administration don't even agree what year it is -- Baker's
plan would implement the first year of the school finance
law known as the Student Opportunity Act, but groups like
the MTA argue that after putting the reforms on hold in
fiscal 2021, next year's budget should have two years' worth
of phased-in new funding to stay on the law's seven-year
schedule.
How the House and Senate will handle school aid in their
budgets remains to be seen. In the vaccine spat at least,
House Speaker Ronald Mariano -- who, by the way, has gotten
his first dose, as has Spilka, because both are age-eligible
-- sided with the teachers.
"If the goal is to have our kids back in public school, a
time certain should have been picked at the very beginning
and we should work toward that," the former teacher and
one-time Quincy School Committee member said on Bloomberg
radio. "The administration, in its wisdom, decided to come
up with a date certain and then has done little to meet that
deadline."
Wherever teachers ultimately get their shots, once they've
received both Pfizer or Moderna doses or the one-and-done
Johnson & Johnson version, new doors will open up for them
14 days later, as they will for all who are fully
vaccinated.
While the virus and its variants are still spreading, new
CDC guidance this week said it's OK for fully vaccinated
individuals to gather indoors, without masks or distancing,
and for them to similarly visit indoors with unvaccinated
members of one other household who are at low risk for
COVID-19. And an update to the state's travel order allows
fully vaccinated travelers to skip the
quarantine-or-test-negative requirements.
After a very long year, those revisions -- combined with a
string of sunny days and Biden's Thursday night forecast
that if everyone keeps up their precautions and gets
vaccinated when they can, this Fourth of July could "begin
to mark our independence from this virus" -- are enough to
have visions of backyard barbecues dancing in your head.
STORY OF THE WEEK: Baker, teachers unions enter the ring for
another round.
State House
News Service
Friday, March 12, 2021
Advances - Week of March 14, 2021
A year ago, the emerging coronavirus pandemic put most
Beacon Hill legislating on hold. A year later, the
Legislature is getting into gear for a more normal session
while the public health emergency rages on and more people
become eligible and willing to get vaccinated against the
virus.
Senate Democrats on Monday take another run at advancing a
sweeping emissions reduction bill, one that the House seems
intent to take quick action on as well. The bill has been
bouncing back and forth from the Legislature to the
governor's office since the waning days of the last
legislative session. Lawmakers passed the bill with less
than 10 days left in the session, and Baker wound up vetoing
it, while making clear he would have preferred to offer
amendments had there been more time. When the House and
Senate sent an identical bill back to him early in this
session, he returned it with his proposed amendments. The
Senate appears willing to incorporate many of the governor's
suggestions but said it plans to hold firm against some of
his more significant proposals.
The Senate also has plans to act swiftly on legislation that
both aids businesses and workers from a tax standpoint and
limits what will still be significant new employer costs to
keep the state's flooded unemployment benefits system
chugging along. The House on Thursday unanimously adopted
the bill, which would create a paid sick leave program for
employees who are affected by COVID-19 and offer tax breaks
on any forgiven Paycheck Protection Program loans from 2020.
Lawmakers will gather virtually Tuesday to accept testimony
on two areas of focus each year -- spending on education and
local aid. The Joint Ways and Means Committee hearing will
feature a slew of Baker administration education officials
who are likely to be questioned about the governor's push to
get more kids back into classrooms for in-person learning
next month. Expect to hear plenty about the implementation
of the landmark 2019 Student Opportunity Act, too. Also, a
bill extending vote-by-mail and early voting options to
cover municipal elections this spring appears poised to
secure the governor's signature in the week ahead.
At this time in 2020, Massachusetts was careening toward a
horrific loss of life at the Holyoke Soldiers' Home and
other long-term care facilities. Next week, state lawmakers
will hold a hearing on plans to build a new soldiers' home
in Holyoke and Baker's bill authorizing up to $400 million
to construct a new long-term care facility there. The
administration says it needs to have authorization available
by April 1 to secure a federal grant that would provide up
to 65 percent in matching funds for the project. Meanwhile,
the Biden administration has cleared a path for people who
have not been vaccinated to visit with loved ones, while
following safety protocols, in nursing homes and similar
settings.
There are now roughly 850,000 people in Massachusetts fully
vaccinated against COVID-19 and the state is going to try to
keep its progress going as one mass vaccination site at
Fenway Park shifts to a new location at the Hynes Convention
Center in the Back Bay of Boston. The Hynes vaccination site
will open Thursday. Appointments at Fenway will continue
through March 27 and the Hynes site is expected to use
roughly 10 days of overlap to ramp up to doing 1,500 shots
per day to match Fenway's current rate. The other
Boston-based mass vaccination site is located at the Reggie
Lewis Center in Roxbury.
|
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
|
