 |
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 22, 2021
The New Governing
Paradigm
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
The Massachusetts
Senate passed climate change legislation on Monday by an
overwhelming vote of 39-1, signaling the Legislature is
unwilling to go along with several amendments sought by Gov.
Charlie Baker.
The bill
approved by the Senate includes a number of tweaks
sought by the governor, but on several key provisions –
a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 and
mandatory interim goals for industry subsectors – the
legislation did not budge. Baker has insisted the 50
percent target, as opposed to the 45 percent he favored,
would end up costing Massachusetts residents $6 billion
unnecessarily.
The measure
passed with the support of two of the Senate’s three
Republicans, including Sen. Bruce Tarr of Gloucester,
who used a parliamentary maneuver last week to delay
action on the bill to provide more time to scrutinize
it. Only Sen. Ryan Fattman of Sutton voted no.
The bill now
goes to the House, where it is expected to easily pass
since leaders worked on the language of the bill with
their Senate counterparts. Baker will then have to
decide whether to veto the bill or sign it into law. The
Senate margin of passage suggests a gubernatorial veto
could easily be overridden....
During a brief
debate, Tarr asked how much the bill will cost
homeowners. [Sen. Michael Barrett of Lexington, the
Senate’s point person on climate change] answered by
downplaying the cost to individuals, saying the choices
people will face about what kind of car to drive and
what to heat their home with will be voluntary. He said
the MassSave program will present options to homeowners,
but deciding whether to follow those recommendations
will be up to the individuals involved.
CommonWealth
Magazine
Monday, March 15, 2021
Senate passes climate change
bill 39-1
Cost barely registers during short debate
Eliminating
carbon emissions from cars and trucks in Massachusetts
right away would require taxing gasoline at more than
$14 a gallon, a
study from the Beacon Hill Institute has found.
Such a
proposal is not on the table. But the authors suggest
the numbers point to a harsh reality: Pursuing
longer-term climate-change benchmarks toward net-zero
carbon emissions will be harmful along the way and
ultimately unattainable.
“In order to
do it now, you’d have to impose a tax of $14.10 on top
of the existing price. That would be to reduce gasoline
emissions to zero,” economist and study co-author David
Tuerck told NewBostonPost in a telephone interview
Tuesday. “It’s supposed to show how crazy it is.”
The study,
released late Monday, contends that a bill before the
Massachusetts Legislature seeking to combat climate
change by requiring net-zero emissions in the state by
2050 is “misconceived” and unsustainable.
“The ‘absolute
zero’ approach embodied by this legislation would be
economically ruinous,” states the 14-page study from The
Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy and Research, a
right-of-center economics think tank. “It would increase
costs to the average Massachusetts household to
unacceptable levels.”
The study
notes that Massachusetts by itself accounts for only a
small portion of the country’s carbon emissions, and
that the United States accounts for only 15 percent of
the world’s emissions — so the authors argue a
Massachusetts-only initiative would have little effect.
“At this
point, it becomes nonsensical to enact a carbon
reduction plan if it is not being implemented at the
global level,” the study states.
The New
Boston Post
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
$14 A Gallon? Massachusetts
Net-Zero-Emissions Climate Change Bill
Would Be ‘Ruinous,’ Study Argues
As major
climate policy legislation wends its way through the
Legislature and back to the governor's desk,
budget-minded groups are raising questions about what
the quest for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
could cost the state and its residents.
Cost has been
part of the debate around the climate bill since Gov.
Charlie Baker vetoed it in January and said the
Legislature's 2030 emissions reduction target would cost
$6 billion more than his preferred target and that the
bill would make building new housing
cost-prohibitive....
After the
Senate incorporated some of Baker's proposed amendments
and doubled down on legislative priorities Monday, the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance pointed out on Twitter
that the "[m]ajor legislation that will impact every
property owner don't get a debate on 'costs' as the
State Senate quickly moves it along."
The issue of
cost did come up briefly during the debate, though it
was discussed in a very broad sense and not in terms of
dollars and cents.
"There is no
mandate, anywhere in this bill, imposed on the
individual homeowner," Sen. Michael Barrett, one of the
chief climate bill sponsors and negotiators, said Monday
after Minority Leader Bruce Tarr raised the issue of
cost....
The senator
also pointed out that the details of those three-year
plans and exactly how they propose to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions will be subject to public hearings and the
influence of whoever is running the executive branch at
the time, suggesting that costs could become clearer
with each three-year plan. The plan for 2022, 2023 and
2024 is under development now and is expected to be
filed with the DPU by Oct. 31....
Also this
week, the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy
Research said its analysis showed that the emissions
reductions approach called for in the bill "would
increase costs to the average Massachusetts household to
unacceptable levels."
State House
News Service
Wednesday, March 17, 2021
Cost Concerns Echoing as
Climate Bill Advances
State
lawmakers in the House on Thursday joined their Senate
colleagues in overwhelmingly backing a revised climate
bill that would mark one of the nation’s most
far-reaching efforts to reduce planet-warming carbon
emissions.
The measure
passed both chambers by large enough margins to override
a potential veto by Governor Charlie Baker, who rejected
a previous version of the bill earlier this year. The
Legislature then sent Baker the same bill, which he
returned last month with a host of amendments.
It was unclear
whether Baker would sign the latest bill, but
administration officials indicated it was likely. He can
no longer amend the bill and lawmakers rejected some of
Baker’s more significant proposals....
With more than
enough votes to ensure the bill becomes law,
representatives and senators were looking ahead to the
next steps.
“We’ve passed
a big, ambitious bill, but for legislators, the work
isn’t over,” said Senator Michael Barrett, a Lexington
Democrat and one of the bill’s chief sponsors and lead
negotiators. “Now the executive branch has to roll out
everything in line with legislative intent. Making sure
this happens is going to take continuing oversight on
our part.”
He said the
Baker administration will soon have to produce “a
comprehensive, clear and specific plan” for achieving
emissions limits for 2025.
“I’m
unimpressed with a draft plan the administration has
already published for the year 2030,” Barrett said.
“That document doesn’t comply with conditions set in
this new law, so they’re going to have to do better.”
...
While
lawmakers approved most of what they described as
“technical” changes that Baker had proposed, they
rejected amendments to lower the target for reducing
emissions by decade’s end. The bill requires the state
to reduce emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by
2030. Baker had called for reducing emissions by 45
percent, saying it would cost the state $6 billion less
than the Legislature’s plan.
The Boston
Globe
Thursday, March 18, 2021
Legislature approves climate bill,
sends back to Governor Baker
A sweeping
climate bill that aims to slash carbon emissions in by
2050 has landed back on Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk — this
time with the veto-proof majority.
“The Senate
and House reaffirm today that this landmark climate
legislation is too important to delay,” Senate President
Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, said Thursday.
House Speaker
Ronald Mariano, D-Quincy, said he was proud lawmakers
“have not backed down from our ambitious goals and
unwavering commitment to make Massachusetts a leader in
climate protection and clean energy.”
Lawmakers
first laid the bill on the governor’s desk following a
late push during the last session, only to have it die
when Baker vetoed the bill after the clock ran out on
the formal session, leaving them with no mechanism to
override his veto....
In his January
veto letter, Baker cited a state analysis that found it
would cost Massachusetts residents $6 billion more to
hit the additional 5% goal in emissions reductions — a
figure Democrats have called “largely exaggerated.”
Baker also
sought to strip building code revisions that allow
cities and towns to opt into a so-called “net-zero”
building code that requires buildings to generate as
much energy as they use.
That change
was a major sticking point for the governor, who said it
could increase housing costs and undermine his efforts
to boost housing production, but Rep. Jeffrey Roy,
D-Franklin, said 288 Massachusetts communities have
already opted into an existing stretch-energy code and
said “net-zero is the next step.” ...
The question
remains whether the governor will veto the bill for a
second time.
But if the
governor chooses to exercise a veto, both branches
retain wide veto-proof majorities. Senators on Monday
advanced the bill in a 39-1 vote. House members on
Thursday concurred in a 146-13 vote.
The Boston
Herald
Friday, March 19, 2021
Climate bill back on Charlie
Baker’s desk, this time with veto-proof power
The U.S.
Treasury has given state lawmakers some breathing room
as they consider a tax relief package worth as much as
$350 million, indicating that states may cut taxes
without being penalized under the new federal stimulus
law.
The Treasury
told the Associated Press on Wednesday that tax cuts are
allowed under the stimulus bill as long as state money
is used to pay for the tax breaks.
The stimulus
bill signed by President Joe Biden last week included a
provision preventing a state like Massachusetts from
using any of the $4.5 billion in direct aid it will
receive "to either directly or indirectly offset a
reduction" in net tax revenue. The restriction could
apply through 2024.
State House
News Service
Thursday, March 18, 2021
U.S. Treasury Gives Green Light to
State Tax Cuts
A year into
the COVID-19 pandemic, Gov. Charlie Baker’s approval
rating has dropped by one third since August, according
to a new UMass Amherst/WCVB poll.
The Republican
governor’s approval rating has sunk to 52%, about
one-third down from his 78% approval rating in August,
according to the poll released Monday. His disapproval
rating rose to 39%, up from 20%.
One of the
nation’s most popular governors, Baker has faced
increasing criticism over his handling of the state’s
vaccination rollout, especially over the past month....
Baker has a
38% approval rating among Republicans, but 61% of
Democrats and 43% of independents approve of him.
Baker also has
a higher approval rating among nonwhites than whites,
rating 55% and 51%, respectively.
The
Springfield Republican
Monday, March 15, 2021
Gov. Charlie Baker’s approval
rating falls during COVID pandemic,
but he remains top contender for 2022, poll suggests
While for most
residents their vaccine eligibility date can't come soon
enough, one date people probably don't mind seeing
pushed back is the tax filing deadline. After the
Internal Revenue Service postponed by a month the April
15 deadline for the second straight year, the
Legislature and administration moved quickly to follow
suit for state taxes.
The Senate
added the extension to May 17 to an unemployment
insurance and tax relief bill that Democratic leaders
are attempting to rush through before the end of the
month. It was announced in a manner rarely seen over the
previous 12 years, but in what is now a regular
occurrence -- a joint statement from Speaker Ron Mariano
and Senate President Karen Spilka.
This
"agreement" appears more likely to hold up than the one
pronouncing a deal on "targeted" tax relief for
low-income workers. The Senate altered the way the House
structured a tax break on unemployment benefits, and
removed the House's proposed $50 million cap, driving
the cost of the total bill to $350 million.
Now businesses
waiting to learn how much they will owe in unemployment
insurance for the first quarter will have to wait to see
if the branches can quickly resolve this difference.
All
differences appear to have been resolved over major
climate legislation that landed back on Gov. Baker's
desk for the third time. This time -- after a veto and
returning the bill with dozens of amendments -- Energy
Secretary Kathleen Theoharides said the governor is
"very pleased" with many of the amendments adopted, and
even okay with some of the elements that seemed
make-or-break just a few weeks ago.
Theoharides
wouldn't say for sure that Baker will put his name on
the bill, which will commit Massachusetts to net-zero
carbon emissions by 2050, but it sure seems like that's
the case.
A win for all
parties on major climate legislation could come at just
the right time for Baker, who has seen support for the
job he is doing managing the state and the coronavirus
pandemic erode since the summer.
A new UMass
Amherst/WCVB poll out this week showed the governor with
a 52 percent approval rating, down from 78 percent in
August and basically on par with the public's approval
of the Legislature, which, no offense to lawmakers,
isn't really where you want to be if you're thinking
about running for a third term.
State House
News Service
Friday, March 19, 2021
Weekly Roundup - A Very Important
Date
With or
without Gov. Charlie Baker's support, Massachusetts
appears poised to secure its most ambitious climate
policy law, although the signals coming from his
administration suggest he'll sign the bill sent to his
desk on Thursday. The bill's origins date back to the
before times and it may not become law until after
Massachusetts forges ahead into the "new normal" phase
of its plan to slowly reopen while simultaneously
fighting COVID-19 transmission and getting more people
vaccinated. The potential signing of a bill laying out a
roadmap for slashing carbon emissions across economic
sectors highlights a week that's chock full of other
major milestones and unfolding storylines...
State House
News Service
Friday, March 19, 2021
Advances - Week of March 21, 2021 |
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
In closing
my commentary in last
Monday's CLT Update I noted:
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") . . .
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.
Passage of Senate Bill 9 (“An Act
Creating A Next-Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate
Policy”) sucked all the oxygen out of the State House all of
last week. The outcome in the Massachusetts Legislature
was never in doubt. It passed in the Senate on Monday by a
vote of 39-1 (Sen. Ryan
Fattman, R-Sutton, was the only dissenting vote) and was sent to
the House. It just as quickly passed in the House by a
vote of
146-13. Here are some of the highlights during the
process:
During a
brief debate, [Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester] Tarr asked how
much the bill will cost homeowners. Barrett answered by
downplaying the cost to individuals, saying the choices
people will face about what kind of car to drive and what to
heat their home with will be voluntary. He said the MassSave
program will present options to homeowners, but deciding
whether to follow those recommendations will be up to the
individuals involved.
CommonWealth Magazine
Monday, March 15, 2021
Senate passes climate change bill 39-1
Cost barely registers during short debate
Eliminating carbon emissions from cars and trucks in
Massachusetts right away would require taxing gasoline at
more than $14 a gallon,
a study from the Beacon Hill Institute has found.
Such a
proposal is not on the table. But the authors suggest the
numbers point to a harsh reality: Pursuing longer-term
climate-change benchmarks toward net-zero carbon emissions
will be harmful along the way and ultimately unattainable.
“In order
to do it now, you’d have to impose a tax of $14.10 on top of
the existing price. That would be to reduce gasoline
emissions to zero,” economist and study co-author David
Tuerck told NewBostonPost in a telephone interview Tuesday.
“It’s supposed to show how crazy it is.”
The study,
released late Monday, contends that a bill before the
Massachusetts Legislature seeking to combat climate change
by requiring net-zero emissions in the state by 2050 is
“misconceived” and unsustainable.
“The
‘absolute zero’ approach embodied by this legislation would
be economically ruinous,” states the 14-page study from The
Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy and Research, a
right-of-center economics think tank. “It would increase
costs to the average Massachusetts household to unacceptable
levels.”
The study
criticizes Massachusetts Senate Bill 9 (“An Act Creating A
Next-Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate Policy”).
One of the goals of the current version of the bill, which
runs to 14,880 words, is “a 2050 statewide emissions limit
that achieves at least net zero statewide greenhouse gas
emissions.” ...
The study
notes that Massachusetts by itself accounts for only a small
portion of the country’s carbon emissions, and that the
United States accounts for only 15 percent of the world’s
emissions — so the authors argue a Massachusetts-only
initiative would have little effect.
“At this
point, it becomes nonsensical to enact a carbon reduction
plan if it is not being implemented at the global level,”
the study states.
The New Boston Post
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
$14 A Gallon? Massachusetts Net-Zero-Emissions Climate
Change Bill
Would Be ‘Ruinous,’ Study Argues
Cost has
been part of the debate around the climate bill since Gov.
Charlie Baker vetoed it in January and said the
Legislature's 2030 emissions reduction target would cost $6
billion more than his preferred target and that the bill
would make building new housing cost-prohibitive.
State House News Service
Wednesday, March 17, 2021
Cost Concerns Echoing as Climate Bill Advances
While
lawmakers approved most of what they described as
“technical” changes that Baker had proposed, they rejected
amendments to lower the target for reducing emissions by
decade’s end. The bill requires the state to reduce
emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Baker had
called for reducing emissions by 45 percent, saying it would
cost the state $6 billion less than the Legislature’s plan.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, March 18, 2021
Legislature approves climate bill, sends back to Governor
Baker
A sweeping
climate bill that aims to slash carbon emissions in by 2050
has landed back on Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk — this time
with the veto-proof majority.
“The
Senate and House reaffirm today that this landmark climate
legislation is too important to delay,” Senate President
Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, said Thursday.
House
Speaker Ronald Mariano, D-Quincy, said he was proud
lawmakers “have not backed down from our ambitious goals and
unwavering commitment to make Massachusetts a leader in
climate protection and clean energy.”
Lawmakers
first laid the bill on the governor’s desk following a late
push during the last session, only to have it die when Baker
vetoed the bill after the clock ran out on the formal
session, leaving them with no mechanism to override his
veto....
In his
January veto letter, Baker cited a state analysis that found
it would cost Massachusetts residents $6 billion more to hit
the additional 5% goal in emissions reductions — a figure
Democrats have called “largely exaggerated.”
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 19, 2021
Climate bill back on Charlie Baker’s desk, this time with
veto-proof power
Late Thursday I was contacted by
Beacon Hill Roll Call for a comment on passage of the massive
climate change legislation now on Gov. Baker's desk. While
it was another example of prohibitively expensive Beacon Hill
ideological overreach, initially I didn't see it at a direct tax
issue so first had to research deeper into it before commenting.
By the time I was done I had arrived at a different perspective.
All these massive new "climate
change" proposals such as this and Baker's Transportation
Climate Initiative (TCI) are becoming a new governing paradigm.
Unpopular direct tax increases are
being replaced and supplanted by directives, mandates, and
decrees that will increasingly cost taxpayers and residents
painfully — not immediately where
there would be political blowback and repercussions but down the
road beyond accountability, beyond the careers of most
legislators who are embracing them, imposing them on their
constituents. Legislators and administration advocates
will be comfortably retired on state pensions long before the
rising cost burden is fully imposed by 2050.
In an act of ultimate hubris the
Massachusetts political elites have decided that Massachusetts
(and California) alone will save the entire Planet Earth from
"man-made climate change" at whatever the cost. They
should have been so inspired back in the '70s when the
"man-made" climate threat du jour was "Global Cooling"
— then they could have long ago declared
victory without having spent a cent of our money!
I passed on
my comment to Beacon Hill Roll Call at 1:00 in the morning on
Friday, but it arrived too late to be included:
“'The "absolute
zero" approach embodied by this legislation would be
economically ruinous. It would increase costs to the
average Massachusetts household to unacceptable levels,' a
study by Beacon Hill Institute concluded, further noting
that any reduction would be negligible on a worldwide
scale," said Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation. "Insufficient
consideration again was given to the further cost burden
this will impose on residents who, as usual, will foot the
entire bill for another grandiose scheme."
State House News Service reported
on Thursday ("U.S. Treasury Gives Green Light to State Tax
Cuts"):
The U.S.
Treasury has given state lawmakers some breathing room as
they consider a tax relief package worth as much as $350
million, indicating that states may cut taxes without being
penalized under the new federal stimulus law.
The Treasury
told the Associated Press on Wednesday that tax cuts are
allowed under the stimulus bill as long as state money is
used to pay for the tax breaks.
The stimulus
bill signed by President Joe Biden last week included a
provision preventing a state like Massachusetts from using
any of the $4.5 billion in direct aid it will receive "to
either directly or indirectly offset a reduction" in net tax
revenue. The restriction could apply through 2024.
How nice of the stumbling Biden
administration's Treasury Department to clarify the Democrats'
"stimulus" law which, if enforced —
upon challenge before the courts —
would likely be determined as unconstitutional. The
federal government is constitutionally not permitted to impose
or direct state tax laws. Constitutionally, the federal
government is a creation of and by the collective of individual
states.
While pandemic vaccinations and
easing of lockdowns is on the increase they have taken a toll on
Gov. Charlie Baker's popularity. According to the
Springfield Republican last Monday ("Gov. Charlie Baker’s
approval rating falls during COVD pandemic, but he remains top
contender for 2022, poll suggests"):
A year into the
COVID-19 pandemic, Gov. Charlie Baker’s approval rating has
dropped by one third since August, according to a new UMass
Amherst/WCVB poll.
The Republican
governor’s approval rating has sunk to 52%, about one-third
down from his 78% approval rating in August, according to
the poll released Monday. His disapproval rating rose to
39%, up from 20%.
One of the
nation’s most popular governors, Baker has faced increasing
criticism over his handling of the state’s vaccination
rollout, especially over the past month....
Baker has a 38%
approval rating among Republicans, but 61% of Democrats and
43% of independents approve of him.
Baker also has
a higher approval rating among nonwhites than whites, rating
55% and 51%, respectively.
Democrats love Charlie, unenrolled
(independent) voters not so much, Republicans even less.
Why doesn't this surprise me?
I got my second Wuhan Chinese Flu
shot last Monday, and again it went smoothly
— there and back in an hour.
Another week supposedly to go before I should be bullet-proof,
able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! So why is
the high priest of pandemic alarm, Dr. Anthony Fauci, demanding
that those who are vaccinated must still wear a least one mask
and preferably two or three layered over each other? We
never needed to do that after decades of getting the
annual flu shots!
My U.S. Senator (and also a medical
doctor) Rand Paul (so
gratifying to have one who actually represents my views
— for the first time in my life!),
raked The Anointed High Priest over the coals on that very point during
a Senate hearing in Washington on Thursday, charging Fauci that
continuing to impose mask mandates after vaccinations and
immunity is nothing
but "theater."
They just refuse to release control
over all of us.
WATCH THE FULL EXCHANGE ON C-SPAN
Here's an excerpt from the Sen.
Rand Paul clash with Dr. Fauci:
"What Fauci
won't tell you is he is telling you a 'noble lie'. He is
lying because he doesn't think we are smart enough to make
decisions," Paul continued. "His fear is, if we quit wearing
masks, the vaccinated [people] will say 'What the hell, I'm
not wearing a mask either.' ...
"You've been
vaccinated and you parade around in two masks for show," he
continued. "You can't get it again, there's virtually 0%
chance you're going to get it ... you're defying everything
we know about immunity by telling people to wear masks
who've been vaccinated."
"Let me just
state for the record that masks are not theater, masks are
protective," Fauci began to say before Paul interjected.
"Past-immunity
they are theater," the senator said. "If you already have
immunity, you're wearing a mask to give comfort to others.
You're not wearing a mask because of any science."
I came across an
interesting article that might explain better what this could
well lead to. In his column ("Our
Pandemic Response: Fear Trumps Liberty; The next
emergency—and it will come—will provide justification for
stripping American citizens of even more of their rights and
liberties"), Mackubin Owens (a retired Marine, professor, and
editor who lives in Newport, RI) wrote:
Most Americans
may not realize it, but we have been subjects of a vast
sociological experiment over the past year. The last year
may not have been intended as an experiment but it has
illustrated some unpleasant truths about what Americans have
become as a people, most importantly, that the citizens of a
country who once proudly proclaimed the motto, “don’t tread
on me” have been willing to endure a great deal of treading.
. . .
The way life in
America as we've known and expected it to be is being rapidly
deconstructed and collapsing so quickly, there might be
something to it — something at least worth considering.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
Full News Reports Follow
(excerpted above) |
|
CommonWealth Magazine
Monday, March 15, 2021
Senate passes climate change bill 39-1
Cost barely registers during short debate
By Bruce Mohl
The Massachusetts Senate passed climate change legislation
on Monday by an overwhelming vote of 39-1, signaling the
Legislature is unwilling to go along with several amendments
sought by Gov. Charlie Baker.
The bill approved by the Senate includes a number of tweaks
sought by the governor, but on several key provisions – a 50
percent reduction in emissions by 2030 and mandatory interim
goals for industry subsectors – the legislation did not
budge. Baker has insisted the 50 percent target, as opposed
to the 45 percent he favored, would end up costing
Massachusetts residents $6 billion unnecessarily.
The measure passed with the support of two of the Senate’s
three Republicans, including Sen. Bruce Tarr of Gloucester,
who used a parliamentary maneuver last week to delay action
on the bill to provide more time to scrutinize it. Only Sen.
Ryan Fattman of Sutton voted no.
The bill now goes to the House, where it is expected to
easily pass since leaders worked on the language of the bill
with their Senate counterparts. Baker will then have to
decide whether to veto the bill or sign it into law. The
Senate margin of passage suggests a gubernatorial veto could
easily be overridden.
“This is a moment that does the Legislature – Senate and
House – proud,” said Sen. Michael Barrett of Lexington, the
Senate’s point person on climate change.
During debate on the bill, Barrett sought to demonstrate how
Massachusetts faces unique challenges in reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. He said agriculture and land use account for
24 percent of all emissions worldwide but only 0.3 percent
in Massachusetts. He said industry accounts for 22 percent
of emissions in the United States, but only 5 percent in
Massachusetts.
Where Massachusetts is different, Barrett said, is on
transportation and building energy use. In Massachusetts,
transportation accounts for 42 percent of emissions,
compared to 29 percent in the United States and building
energy use accounts for 27 percent of emissions in
Massachusetts but only 12 percent across the United States.
As the state strives for net zero emissions by 2050, Barrett
said the climate change bill begins to focus attention on
the issue by setting ambitious interim targets for the state
as a whole and for six industry subsectors. Baker had sought
to lessen the target for the state as a whole and use the
industry targets as planning tools, but both were rejected.
Barrett said the bill also requires key state agencies – the
Department of Public Utilities, the Board of Building
Regulations and Standards, and the MassSave program – to
focus on reducing emissions as part of their daily work and
authorizes the creation of voluntary net zero municipal
building standards by the Department of Energy Resources.
The bill authorizes the procurement of an additional 2,400
megawatts of offshore wind, removes impediments to solar
power development, and provides a tax credit for hydrogen
fuel cells. The bill also establishes in law special
considerations for so-called environmental justice
communities.
During a brief debate, Tarr asked how much the bill will
cost homeowners. Barrett answered by downplaying the cost to
individuals, saying the choices people will face about what
kind of car to drive and what to heat their home with will
be voluntary. He said the MassSave program will present
options to homeowners, but deciding whether to follow those
recommendations will be up to the individuals involved.
MassSave, which currently conducts energy audits for
homeowners, is run by utilities, overseen by state
government, and financed using an assessment on utility
bills. In January 2019, state regulators approved utility
plans to spend nearly $2.8 billion of ratepayer money over
the next three years in an attempt to generate energy
savings of $8.5 billion. Under the climate change bill, the
next three-year plan will likely also have emission
reduction targets as well as energy savings targets.
The New Boston
Post
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
$14 A Gallon? Massachusetts Net-Zero-Emissions Climate Change
Bill
Would Be ‘Ruinous,’ Study Argues
By Matt McDonald
Eliminating carbon emissions from cars and trucks in
Massachusetts right away would require taxing gasoline at more
than $14 a gallon, a
study from the Beacon Hill Institute has found.
Such a proposal is not on the table. But the authors suggest the
numbers point to a harsh reality: Pursuing longer-term
climate-change benchmarks toward net-zero carbon emissions will
be harmful along the way and ultimately unattainable.
“In order to do it now, you’d have to impose a tax of $14.10 on
top of the existing price. That would be to reduce gasoline
emissions to zero,” economist and study co-author David Tuerck
told NewBostonPost in a telephone interview Tuesday. “It’s
supposed to show how crazy it is.”
The study, released late Monday, contends that a bill before the
Massachusetts Legislature seeking to combat climate change by
requiring net-zero emissions in the state by 2050 is
“misconceived” and unsustainable.
“The ‘absolute zero’ approach embodied by this legislation would
be economically ruinous,” states the 14-page study from The
Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy and Research, a
right-of-center economics think tank. “It would increase costs
to the average Massachusetts household to unacceptable levels.”
The study criticizes Massachusetts Senate Bill 9 (“An Act
Creating A Next-Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate
Policy”). One of the goals of the current version of the bill,
which runs to 14,880 words, is “a 2050 statewide emissions limit
that achieves at least net zero statewide greenhouse gas
emissions …”
The bill’s primary sponsors, state Senator Michael Barrett
(D-Lexington) and state Representative Thomas A. Golden Jr.
(D-Lowell), could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.
Supporters of anti-climate-change measures often argue that a
combination of government requirements and technical
improvements in the coming decades will make it financially
feasible to achieve their goals. The study’s authors question
that.
“No doubt defenders of the zero-carbon goal would argue that the
technology of 2050 will much reduce these numbers. But no one
knows by how much because no one knows what the future
technology will look like,” the study states. “The point is that
proponents of the zero-emissions goal do not bother to think
through the improvements in technology that their ideas would
necessitate – improvements that are far beyond our imagination
now.”
The study notes that Massachusetts by itself accounts for only a
small portion of the country’s carbon emissions, and that the
United States accounts for only 15 percent of the world’s
emissions — so the authors argue a Massachusetts-only initiative
would have little effect.
“At this point, it becomes nonsensical to enact a carbon
reduction plan if it is not being implemented at the global
level,” the study states.
The authors of the study (titled “Zero Massachusetts CO2
Emissions by 2050? Rethinking Climate Policy in the Bay State”)
are David Tuerck, a retired economics professor at Suffolk
University and president of the Beacon Hill Institute; and
Kerstin Gordon, a research intern with a bachelor’s degree in
economics.
The authors argue that a carbon tax makes more sense than
setting what they describe as an unreachable standard of
net-zero emissions by a certain date. The authors stop short of
endorsing a carbon tax, however.
“A carbon tax assures that emission reductions will be
accomplished at the lowest possible social cost. If the United
States adopted a carbon tax and if it secured the participation
of other countries in a similar effort, it could bring about a
substantial reduction in global emissions,” the authors say.
“Whether that would confer net benefits on the global economy is
another matter to be determined.”
A July 2019 study co-authored by Tuerck called a carbon tax
proposed specifically for Massachusetts in a previous bill
before the state Legislature “A High-Cost, Low-Benefit Policy.”
Tuerck’s 2019 study on the proposed carbon tax found that a $20
tax on a metric ton of carbon emissions would raise the price of
gasoline by about 18 cents and reduce emissions from gasoline by
1.2 percent.
That 2019 study was funded by Fiscal Alliance Foundation. Tuerck
told NewBostonPost on Tuesday that the study released this week
concerning the net-zero-emissions bill was not funded by another
group.
NewBostonPost asked Tuerck for the math behind the $14.10 gas
tax figure in the current study. He supplied it, and the
document is available on the NewBostonPost web site.
In the study, Tuerck and Gordon note that Massachusetts has
already achieved significant reductions in emissions. The
authors refer to a report released by the state’s environmental
agencies in 2017 that found that greenhouse gas emissions in
2016 “were 21.4% below the 1990 baseline level … despite a 14%
growth in population and 24% growth in vehicle miles traveled …”
“The question, therefore, arises whether Massachusetts needs to
further steps to reduce its carbon initiative,” Tuerck and
Gordon write.
Even if the state does need to reduce emissions, the authors
contend, the net-zero-emissions proposal is going about it the
wrong way. The zero-emissions climate-change bill, they say,
“removes from consideration any thought of a less extreme,
intermediate solution while presenting itself as a social
necessity.”
“Massachusetts voters should wonder why their legislative
leaders have shifted their attention from the idea of a carbon
tax to that of a zero-carbon goal. It is easy to figure out why:
If they proposed a tax high enough to reach the same goal, the
voters would recoil in horror,” the study states.
A version of the net-zero climate change bill passed both
chambers of the Massachusetts Legislature late last legislative
session, but Governor Charlie Baker pocket vetoed it after the
session expired in January. Baker administration officials and
legislative leaders have been negotiating changes to the bill
during the past several weeks.
Baker, a Republican, has said he shares the goal of supporters
of the bill of trying to achieve zero net emissions by 2050 –
“The science is clear — the Commonwealth, the nation and the
world must achieve net zero emissions by 2050 if we are to avoid
the worst impacts of climate change,” the governor wrote in a
February 7 message that contained his proposed amendments to the
current bill.
As for changes, the governor wants, among other things, somewhat
less aggressive targets for reductions of carbon emissions in
2030 and 2040 on the way to zero emissions in 2050; more
flexibility in setting goals for reductions in emissions in
specific sectors of the economy; and more flexibility to
implement building codes that encourage more below-market-rate
housing to be built in the state.
On Monday, March 15, the Massachusetts Senate approved an
amendment to the bill filed by Governor Baker, 39-1. Only state
Senator Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) voted against the amendment.
The Massachusetts House of Representatives has not yet acted on
the governor’s proposed amendments.
The governor’s press office could not be reached Tuesday, March
16.
State House News
Service
Wednesday, March 17, 2021
Cost Concerns Echoing as Climate Bill Advances
House, Senate Could Return Bill to Baker on Thursday
By Colin A. Young
As major climate policy legislation wends its way through the
Legislature and back to the governor's desk, budget-minded
groups are raising questions about what the quest for net-zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 could cost the state and its
residents.
Cost has been part of the debate around the climate bill since
Gov. Charlie Baker vetoed it in January and said the
Legislature's 2030 emissions reduction target would cost $6
billion more than his preferred target and that the bill would
make building new housing cost-prohibitive.
The House is expected to debate and pass the latest version of
the bill Thursday.
After the Senate incorporated some of Baker's proposed
amendments and doubled down on legislative priorities Monday,
the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance pointed out on Twitter that
the "[m]ajor legislation that will impact every property owner
don't get a debate on 'costs' as the State Senate quickly moves
it along."
The issue of cost did come up briefly during the debate, though
it was discussed in a very broad sense and not in terms of
dollars and cents.
"There is no mandate, anywhere in this bill, imposed on the
individual homeowner," Sen. Michael Barrett, one of the chief
climate bill sponsors and negotiators, said Monday after
Minority Leader Bruce Tarr raised the issue of cost.
Part of the emissions reduction strategy envisioned in the bill
and the Baker administration's climate policy is to wring
efficiencies out of the building and transportation realms by
making it more financially and technically possible for
residents to switch to more efficient means of home heating, to
buy an electric vehicle when their gas-powered models need to be
replaced, and to make other changes that could have a meaningful
impact at scale.
The utility-run MassSave energy efficiency program is one of the
most visible and accessible ways for homeowners and businesses
to tackle efficiency projects and could become an even more
instrumental part of the state's efforts if the climate bill
passes.
While climate concerns have grown in Massachusetts during recent
years, Barrett said important entities like MassSave "somehow
seemed somewhat unaware that they were potentially playing
pivotal roles in offering a solution."
Rather than just detailing the ratepayer savings expected under
each of its required three-year plans -- the plan approved in
2019 estimated it would provide about $8.5 billion in savings by
using about $2.7 billion from ratepayers -- the bill would
require the executive branch to set emissions reduction goals at
the outset of each three-year plan and have the Department of
Public Utilities assess whether those goals were met by the end
of the three years.
"So the secretary sets an emissions reduction goal. That has to
be reflected prominently in the three-year plan that's actually
produced. At the end of the process, the DPU is going to come
back and tell the public and the Legislature whether the
secretary's three-year goal for MassSave was achieved or not,"
Barrett said. "The idea is to align all these efforts in a
reasonably tight way to ensure that we get to where we know we
need to go."
The senator also pointed out that the details of those
three-year plans and exactly how they propose to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions will be subject to public hearings and
the influence of whoever is running the executive branch at the
time, suggesting that costs could become clearer with each
three-year plan. The plan for 2022, 2023 and 2024 is under
development now and is expected to be filed with the DPU by Oct.
31.
"We're all going to be part of a much more focused conversation
about how the heck we're going to get the job done," Barrett
said.
Barrett also pointed out that participation in the MassSave
program is entirely voluntary.
"There is no cost imposed on the public, and for that matter,
there is no cost imposed on the building owner, the homeowner,
unless he or she is interested in making an improvement in her
home," he said.
In anticipation of Thursday's House debate, the New England Gas
Workers Alliance said Wednesday that it is urging
representatives to strip the climate bill of language "approved
by the Senate that would cost jobs, push up the price of housing
and potentially kill construction work in communities around the
state," referring to the proposed creation of an opt-in
municipal stretch energy code that cities and towns could choose
to adopt to require new construction to be "net-zero."
"Our workers join with the real estate industry, utilities and
other labor unions in strongly objecting to new regulations
allowing cities and towns to stop all fossil fuel connections to
new construction. Eight Massachusetts communities with some of
the most expensive housing in the country have already said they
will move forward with such bans if the Legislature passes the
Senate version of the bill," the alliance of union gas workers
said, adding that the bill also includes "good common sense
steps" to address climate change. "This would not only drive up
the cost of housing, it would put monthly utility bills out of
the reach of many working families."
Before Baker vetoed the climate bill in January, he said he had
"gotten a lot of incoming from a lot of folks who are in the
building and home construction business who have said that
certain pieces of this bill ... literally may just stop in its
tracks any housing development in the commonwealth." Supporters
of the stretch energy code say it would not impact projects
already under development.
Baker highlighted that provision as an issue when he vetoed the
bill and in February proposed amendments that his energy and
environment chief said would provide some clarity around how the
code would focus on things like having a tight building envelope
"without necessarily doing some of the things folks were worried
about with a net-zero code, which might include prescribing
solar panels on all buildings or requiring buildings not be
connected to gas."
The Senate rejected that amendment Monday and the latest version
of the bill would direct the Department of Energy Resources to
create a new specialized code that includes both net-zero
building performance standards and the definition of a net-zero
building.
Also this week, the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy
Research said its analysis showed that the emissions reductions
approach called for in the bill "would increase costs to the
average Massachusetts household to unacceptable levels."
The report focused largely on an alternative appraoch that is
not in the climate bill: a carbon tax, which the conservative
think tank said "assures that emission reductions will be
accomplished at the lowest possible social cost."
The Boston
Globe
Thursday, March 18, 2021
Legislature approves climate bill, sends back to Governor Baker
By David Abel
State lawmakers in the House on Thursday joined their Senate
colleagues in overwhelmingly backing a revised climate bill that
would mark one of the nation’s most far-reaching efforts to
reduce planet-warming carbon emissions.
The measure passed both chambers by large enough margins to
override a potential veto by Governor Charlie Baker, who
rejected a previous version of the bill earlier this year. The
Legislature then sent Baker the same bill, which he returned
last month with a host of amendments.
It was unclear whether Baker would sign the latest bill, but
administration officials indicated it was likely. He can no
longer amend the bill and lawmakers rejected some of Baker’s
more significant proposals.
Kathleen Theoharides, the state’s secretary of energy and
environmental affairs, said the bill included 42 of 47 changes
Baker had proposed and that he was pleased with the final bill.
“Our tone is very positive,” she said.
The bill seeks to put Massachusetts on a path to effectively
eliminate its carbon emissions by 2050 by promoting renewable
energy and reducing its reliance on fossil fuels. It calls for
increasing energy-efficiency requirements for appliances and
requiring utilities to buy significantly more offshore wind
power. It also has potentially broad ramifications for the
business community, touching everything from the solar industry
to municipal light plants.
With more than enough votes to ensure the bill becomes law,
representatives and senators were looking ahead to the next
steps.
“We’ve passed a big, ambitious bill, but for legislators, the
work isn’t over,” said Senator Michael Barrett, a Lexington
Democrat and one of the bill’s chief sponsors and lead
negotiators. “Now the executive branch has to roll out
everything in line with legislative intent. Making sure this
happens is going to take continuing oversight on our part.”
He said the Baker administration will soon have to produce “a
comprehensive, clear and specific plan” for achieving emissions
limits for 2025.
“I’m unimpressed with a draft plan the administration has
already published for the year 2030,” Barrett said. “That
document doesn’t comply with conditions set in this new law, so
they’re going to have to do better.”
While lawmakers approved most of what they described as
“technical” changes that Baker had proposed, they rejected
amendments to lower the target for reducing emissions by
decade’s end. The bill requires the state to reduce emissions to
50 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Baker had called for
reducing emissions by 45 percent, saying it would cost the state
$6 billion less than the Legislature’s plan.
Theoharides said other changes in the bill were likely to offset
some of those projected costs. The initial bill, for example,
called for emissions limits in six distinct sectors of the
economy, such as transportation, manufacturing, and natural gas
distribution. But the revised bill no longer makes those limits
legally binding if the state is able to meet overall emissions
targets by decade.
“This allows us to realistically pursue the more ambitious goals
in a manner that we believe is more cost-effective,” Theoharides
said.
She said Baker also appreciated the inclusion of stronger
language to promote environmental justice. Those provisions give
communities with a disproportionate amount of pollution a
greater voice in approving local developments.
“This is a significant addition to the bill and will permanently
reduce public health impacts on these communities,” Theoharides
said.
Lawmakers also made changes that delay requirements for the
state’s building codes to promote more “net zero” construction.
Baker, under pressure from the real estate industry, had raised
concerns that the requirements would increase construction costs
and cause delays.
Tamara Small, chief executive of NAIOP Massachusetts, a
development trade group, said she was grateful to lawmakers for
addressing their concerns. The revised bill gave the state six
more months to issue new energy rules for new construction and
allows so-called “green communities” to maintain their status if
they don’t adopt the new building codes.
“We believe the Legislature took steps to address the concerns
of the business community,” she said. “We recognize that, if
enacted, the bill will require a robust stakeholder process to
ensure a thoughtful and practical implementation.”
Caitlin Peale Sloan, interim director of the Conservation Law
Foundation in Massachusetts, called the legislation “a momentous
step forward in confronting the climate crisis and protecting
communities that suffer first and worst from climate change.”
Before the vote, State Rep. Thomas Golden, a Lowell Democrat who
shepherded the bill through the chamber, noted it was the fourth
time the Legislature was voting on the bill in less than a year.
“There was no way the Legislature was backing down from our
ambitious goals,” he said.
State Rep. Jeff Roy, a Franklin Democrat invoked former
President John F. Kennedy’s speech about sending men to the
moon, saying, “We do these things not because they are easy, but
because they are hard.”
“This is an incredibly comprehensive, groundbreaking piece of
legislation,” Roy said. “It ensures our path to decarbonization
is fair, equitable, and inclusive.”
The Boston
Herald
Friday, March 19, 2021
Climate bill back on Charlie Baker’s desk, this time with
veto-proof power
By Erin Tiernan
A sweeping climate bill that aims to slash carbon emissions in
by 2050 has landed back on Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk — this time
with the veto-proof majority.
“The Senate and House reaffirm today that this landmark climate
legislation is too important to delay,” Senate President Karen
Spilka, D-Ashland, said Thursday.
House Speaker Ronald Mariano, D-Quincy, said he was proud
lawmakers “have not backed down from our ambitious goals and
unwavering commitment to make Massachusetts a leader in climate
protection and clean energy.”
Lawmakers first laid the bill on the governor’s desk following a
late push during the last session, only to have it die when
Baker vetoed the bill after the clock ran out on the formal
session, leaving them with no mechanism to override his veto.
Legislators defiantly refiled an identical version of the bill
days later, only to have it returned to them once again with
amendments despite the governor at the time saying the two sides
found “considerable common ground.” Lawmakers accepted the
majority of the Republican governor’s changes.
Baker sought to change language that would require cutting
carbon emissions to “at least” 50% of 1990 levels by 2030. Baker
instead proposed a reduction range of 45% to 50% by 2030 and by
65% to 75% by 2040, which lawmakers rejected.
In his January veto letter, Baker cited a state analysis that
found it would cost Massachusetts residents $6 billion more to
hit the additional 5% goal in emissions reductions — a figure
Democrats have called “largely exaggerated.”
Baker also sought to strip building code revisions that allow
cities and towns to opt into a so-called “net-zero” building
code that requires buildings to generate as much energy as they
use.
That change was a major sticking point for the governor, who
said it could increase housing costs and undermine his efforts
to boost housing production, but Rep. Jeffrey Roy, D-Franklin,
said 288 Massachusetts communities have already opted into an
existing stretch-energy code and said “net-zero is the next
step.”
The question remains whether the governor will veto the bill for
a second time.
But if the governor chooses to exercise a veto, both branches
retain wide veto-proof majorities. Senators on Monday advanced
the bill in a 39-1 vote. House members on Thursday concurred in
a 146-13 vote.
State House News
Service
Thursday, March 18, 2021
U.S. Treasury Gives Green Light to State Tax Cuts
By Matt Murphy
The U.S. Treasury has given state lawmakers some breathing room
as they consider a tax relief package worth as much as $350
million, indicating that states may cut taxes without being
penalized under the new federal stimulus law.
The Treasury told the Associated Press on Wednesday that tax
cuts are allowed under the stimulus bill as long as state money
is used to pay for the tax breaks.
The stimulus bill signed by President Joe Biden last week
included a provision preventing a state like Massachusetts from
using any of the $4.5 billion in direct aid it will receive "to
either directly or indirectly offset a reduction" in net tax
revenue. The restriction could apply through 2024.
Some tax experts expressed concern that this could wind up
doubling the cost of certain proposed tax breaks in the
unemployment insurance rate relief bill that the Senate plans to
vote on Thursday.
Experts and lawmakers were particularly interested in how the
federal restriction might impact a tax credit proposed for
low-income workers on unemployment benefits collected over the
last year. While the House capped the credit at $50 million over
two years, the Senate reworked the credit and said it could cost
$126 million.
The chairmen of both the House and Senate Ways and Means
Committees told the News Service last week they were awaiting
guidance from the Treasury but believed the state would not be
penalized for the tax relief bill because legislators had not
proposed to use stimulus money to pay for it.
"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," Sen. Michael Rodrigues said.
And Rep. Aaron Michlewitz said, "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."
The
Springfield Republican
Monday, March 15, 2021
Gov. Charlie Baker’s approval rating falls during COVID
pandemic,
but he remains top contender for 2022, poll suggests
By Steph Solis
A year into the COVID-19 pandemic, Gov. Charlie Baker’s approval
rating has dropped by one third since August, according to a new
UMass Amherst/WCVB poll.
The Republican governor’s approval rating has sunk to 52%, about
one-third down from his 78% approval rating in August, according
to the poll released Monday. His disapproval rating rose to 39%,
up from 20%.
One of the nation’s most popular governors, Baker has faced
increasing criticism over his handling of the state’s
vaccination rollout, especially over the past month.
The Baker administration has caught flak over the so-called rate
race residents faced when signing up for vaccine appointments,
leading the website to crash twice; announcements that ran
deviated from the COVID-19 vaccination plan allowing caregivers
of any age to get their doses alongside 75 year olds; decisions
to pause shipments at hospitals and halt shipments altogether at
many local health departments, instead spending $10 million and
counting on private vendors running large-scale sites.
Then there’s the latest tiff between Baker and the teachers
unions. His staff says they want to reserve their own doses at
the expense of older, sicker residents, while union
representatives say they want the doses already reserved to them
to be distributed at schools so staffers could more easily get
their shots. Union leaders also expressed concerns that despite
the limited supply of vaccine doses coming from the federal
government, Baker and Education Commissioner Jeff Riley have
held firm on plans to require elementary schools to resume
in-person learning five days a week in April.
“To no one’s surprise, Baker’s approval ratings have dipped and
this is true across all demographic and political groups in the
state,” says Tatishe Nteta, associate professor of political
science at UMass Amherst and director of the poll.
“Controversies over the vaccine rollout, the return to in-person
learning and statewide lockdowns all did real damage to Baker’s
status as America’s most popular governor.
The state’s vaccination numbers, however, have shown
improvements. As of Monday, more than 914,000 residents are
fully vaccinated and the pre-registration site that replaced the
vaxfinder tool launched Friday with few, if any, issues.
Meanwhile, the number of new COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations
have declined gradually.
Baker has a 38% approval rating among Republicans, but 61% of
Democrats and 43% of independents approve of him.
Baker also has a higher approval rating among nonwhites than
whites, rating 55% and 51%, respectively.
“While he has come under fire for racial disparities in COVID
cases, hospitalizations and deaths alongside similar racial gaps
in vaccinations, a majority of people of color still approve of
his job as governor and do so at a higher level than whites,”
Nteta said.
The poll also looked at how Baker would fare against potential
candidates for governor if he ran for a third term, suggesting
he would hold a solid lead over most rumored contenders. The
Republican governor hasn’t announced any plans to seek
reelection.
Attorney General Maura Healey, who many have speculated will run
in 2022, came within 3 percentage points of Baker in the poll,
garnering 28% to Baker’s 31%. Another 34% of the respondents
said they were unsure who they would support.
Baker holds a solid edge over former state Sen. Ben Downing —
the only official gubernatorial candidate — as well as former
Rep. Joe Kennedy III, state Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz and Harvard
political science professor Danielle Allen. In each matchup, a
large chunk of registered voters said they weren’t sure how they
would vote. But Baker garnered 37% of support to Kennedy’s 27%;
31% of support to Downing’s 12%; 30% to Chang-Diaz’s 16% and 30%
to Allen’s 14%.
“It may be too early to tell, but if Attorney General Maura
Healey decides to challenge Governor Baker, he may have a real
fight on his hands as Healey only trails Baker by 3 percentage
points in our hypothetical matchup,” Nteta said.
State House News
Service
Friday, March 19, 2021
Weekly Roundup - A Very Important Date
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Matt Murphy
Runners won't be lining up at dawn in Hopkinton, and there will
be no crush of spectators on Boylston Street to see the elite
racers sprint to the finish.
The Bloody Marys won't be flowing at local brunch spots,
revelers packed elbow-to-elbow, and the city the day after the
race won't be crowded with tourists sporting their newly earned
Boston Marathon jackets.
But there will be morning baseball played at Fenway Park on
Patriots' Day this year. And there will certainly be a buzz in
the air. Gov. Charlie Baker made sure of both things this week.
The governor on Wednesday - St. Patrick's Day - announced that
by the time the next holiday on the calendar rolls around on
April 19 everyone 16 and older will be eligible to get a
COVID-19 vaccine. Call it a date to set a date. Because of
course, you'll still have to score a coveted appointment.
Buoyed by assurances from the White House that increased vaccine
supply is on its way, Baker laid out a timetable this week for
everyone not yet eligible to receive a vaccine to become
eligible. The news from Washington was so encouraging,
apparently, that the governor did a double take.
"I called a number of other governors and said, 'Did you guys
just hear what I heard?' And I think for the most part many of
us are really enthusiastic about where this is going...," Baker
said.
The expansion starts Monday with anyone 60 or older and certain
workers, including restaurant, retail and transit workers, able
to start booking appointments. Residents 55 or older and those
with one qualifying health condition will become eligible April
5 and the general public will become eligible April 19.
Monday is also the day that Massachusetts will advance into
Phase 4 of the governor's reopening plan, meaning large venues
like Fenway can open at 12 percent capacity, wedding dances are
back on the program and overnight summer camps can start booking
reservations.
Baker is also making the state's travel "order" and "advisory"
without fines and giving the fully vaccinated a rhetorical
passport to cross state lines (though some states are
considering actual passports).
All of this is being made possible by improving infection and
hospitalization trend lines that continue to be balanced on the
head of a needle as new variants become more dominant, creating
great unknowns for epidemiologists.
The state crossed the 1-million-vaccinated threshold this week,
and the administration's goal is 4 million by the summer.
While for most residents their vaccine eligibility date can't
come soon enough, one date people probably don't mind seeing
pushed back is the tax filing deadline. After the Internal
Revenue Service postponed by a month the April 15 deadline for
the second straight year, the Legislature and administration
moved quickly to follow suit for state taxes.
The Senate added the extension to May 17 to an unemployment
insurance and tax relief bill that Democratic leaders are
attempting to rush through before the end of the month. It was
announced in a manner rarely seen over the previous 12 years,
but in what is now a regular occurrence -- a joint statement
from Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka.
This "agreement" appears more likely to hold up than the one
pronouncing a deal on "targeted" tax relief for low-income
workers. The Senate altered the way the House structured a tax
break on unemployment benefits, and removed the House's proposed
$50 million cap, driving the cost of the total bill to $350
million.
Now businesses waiting to learn how much they will owe in
unemployment insurance for the first quarter will have to wait
to see if the branches can quickly resolve this difference.
All differences appear to have been resolved over major climate
legislation that landed back on Gov. Baker's desk for the third
time. This time -- after a veto and returning the bill with
dozens of amendments -- Energy Secretary Kathleen Theoharides
said the governor is "very pleased" with many of the amendments
adopted, and even okay with some of the elements that seemed
make-or-break just a few weeks ago.
Theoharides wouldn't say for sure that Baker will put his name
on the bill, which will commit Massachusetts to net-zero carbon
emissions by 2050, but it sure seems like that's the case.
A win for all parties on major climate legislation could come at
just the right time for Baker, who has seen support for the job
he is doing managing the state and the coronavirus pandemic
erode since the summer.
A new UMass Amherst/WCVB poll out this week showed the governor
with a 52 percent approval rating, down from 78 percent in
August and basically on par with the public's approval of the
Legislature, which, no offense to lawmakers, isn't really where
you want to be if you're thinking about running for a third
term.
He'll also have to try to smooth over some of the frustration
city and town leaders are feeling about the state's plan to fund
public education and the Student Opportunity Act. A decline in
enrollment recorded last October of roughly 35,000 students led
to the formula for state aid delivering less than many school
districts were anticipating.
Local officials believe many of those students will be returning
in the fall, and fear their budgets could be undersupported by
the state to the tune of $120 million.
Superintendents and school committee members raised the issue
with House and Senate budget writers at a hearing the same day
UMass President Marty Meehan announced he would seek a tuition
freeze for the 2021-2022 school year thanks to federal stimulus
funding. Elementary and secondary schools are also in line to
receive substantial support from the relief bill, which will be
the subject of a legislative committee hearing on Beacon Hill in
two weeks.
Not that they necessarily want his job, but the state's
Congressional delegation, and especially South Boston's Rep.
Stephen Lynch, were not shy about weighing in on some of the
decisions Baker is making, especially after they delivered on
billions in relief through the "American Rescue Plan."
Lynch was particularly fired up about cuts in service and staff
at the MBTA and commuter rail, and on Friday the T backtracked
on plans to furlough 40 workers and promised Lynch no layoffs.
Thomas McGee didn't need to get laid off, He announced he's
giving up his job voluntarily, and adding another "former" to
his biography in the process. The former senator and former
Democratic Party chairman will now be the former mayor of Lynn
at the end of the year because he's not running for reelection.
He's one of a number of mayors to give up their seats this
cycle, but so far it hasn't sparked the stampede of legislators
seen in past years eager to trade the State House for City Hall.
STORY OF THE WEEK: Now something besides warmer weather for
everyone to look forward to in April - the chance to get a
vaccine.
State House News
Service
Friday, March 19, 2021
Advances - Week of March 21, 2021
With or without Gov. Charlie Baker's support, Massachusetts
appears poised to secure its most ambitious climate policy law,
although the signals coming from his administration suggest
he'll sign the bill sent to his desk on Thursday. The bill's
origins date back to the before times and it may not become law
until after Massachusetts forges ahead into the "new normal"
phase of its plan to slowly reopen while simultaneously fighting
COVID-19 transmission and getting more people vaccinated. The
potential signing of a bill laying out a roadmap for slashing
carbon emissions across economic sectors highlights a week
that's chock full of other major milestones and unfolding
storylines:
-- Boston Mayoral Transition: With a Senate confirmation vote
scheduled for Monday, Boston Mayor Martin Walsh appears to be
riding out his final days in an office that he won in 2013. With
Walsh gearing up to become the nation's next labor secretary,
City Council President Kim Janey is also poised to leave that
body and occupy the Eagle Room as the city's next mayor. She
will become the first woman and first Black person to lead the
city and will take office at a time when a handful of
competitors are already running for mayor. Janey hasn't said
whether she will join the field. Candidates have until May 18 to
submit the required 3,000 nomination signatures. The Sept. 21
preliminary election will leave two candidates to compete in the
final mayoral election on Nov. 2.
-- Final Reopening Phase: The state reopens more widely starting
on Monday as it moves into Phase 4 of Baker's reopening plan,
which he described as the new normal when he outlined his
long-term goals last May. Stadiums, arenas and ballparks may
operate at 12 percent capacity after submitting plans to the
Department of Public Health, an allowance that the Bruins,
Celtics and Red Sox plan to take advantage of. Also effective
Monday, gathering limits for event venues and public settings
will rise to 100 people indoors and 150 outside. For private
residences, the caps will remain at 25 people outside and 10
people inside. Overnight summer camps will be allowed to open,
exhibition and convention halls will be able to operate subject
to the gathering limits, and dance floors will be permitted at
weddings and other events. Boston is pursuing a modified version
of Phase 4, with lower caps.
-- New Groups Vaccine Eligible: The eligibility pool for
COVID-19 vaccines will expand again on Monday, with people
between the ages of 60 and 64 and certain workers joining a list
that so far includes those 65 and older, teachers, child care
workers and school staff, residents and staff of nursing and
congregate care facilities, and health care workers. Members of
those populations can pre-register for an appointment at one of
the state's seven mass vaccination sites and use the state's
VaxFinder tool to search for appointments at pharmacies, health
care providers and community locations. Workers who will become
eligible include those employed at restaurants, grocery and
convenience stores, in retail, public health, the court system,
meatpacking, agriculture, public works, sanitation, postal and
package delivery, and involved in the medical supply chain,
vaccine development, transit and transportation, and funeral
services. Gov. Baker, who at age 64 will be among the newly
eligible, has said he plans to pre-register.
-- UI Bill Negotiations: Lawmakers face pressure next week to
agree quickly on legislation outlining business premium
increases and surcharges to stabilize an unemployment system
that continues to struggle with heavy demand. The branches
largely agree on the bill, but significantly must reconcile
their differing approaches to tax credits for low-income workers
receiving unemployment benefits. In addition to needing to agree
on a premium schedule so businesses can field their first
quarter unemployment insurance bills, the Senate this week added
another time-sensitive item to the bill: an extension of the
April 15 tax-filing deadline until Monday, May 17. The House
bill was silent on a filing deadline extension; senators agreed
to their new deadline after the IRS announced a one-month
federal extension. However, that point may be moot: on Friday,
the state Department of Revenue said it had unilaterally pushed
the deadline itself using authority granted under the federal
state of emergency.
-- Travel Order Becomes Advisory: Effective Monday, the July
2020 travel order that required people entering Massachusetts
from most states to fill out a form and quarantine for 10 days,
test negative for COVID-19, or face fines of up to $500 per day
will be replaced with an advisory that instead encourages people
to quarantine upon arrival in Massachusetts if they have been
away for 24 hours or more. The advisory, Baker's office said,
will not apply to those returning after trips shorter than 24
hours, those who tested negative for COVID-19 up to 72 hours
before arriving in Massachusetts, or fully vaccinated travelers.
-- Vaccine Rollout Scrutiny: Best in the nation or riddled with
avoidable problems? Lawmakers on Tuesday are ready to call Baker
administration officials back for a second oversight hearing on
the state's COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Baker's critics have
seized on the rollout's troubles to bash Baker as unprepared and
disorganized, while the governor has asserted that he's been
responsive to bumps in the road and has repeatedly framed the
vaccine rollout here as superior to those in most other states.
Monday, March 22, 2021
NEW TRAVEL ADVISORY: Effective Monday, the July 2020 travel
order that required people entering Massachusetts from most
states to fill out a form and quarantine for 10 days, test
negative for COVID-19, or face fines of up to $500 per day will
be replaced with an advisory that instead encourages people to
quarantine upon arrival in Massachusetts if they have been away
for 24 hours or more. The advisory, Baker's office said, will
not apply to those returning after trips shorter than 24 hours,
those who tested negative for COVID-19 up to 72 hours before
arriving in Massachusetts, or fully vaccinated travelers.
FINAL REOPENING PHASE BEGINS: The state reopens wider starting
on Monday as it moves into Phase 4 of Baker's reopening plan,
which he described as the new normal when he outlined his
long-term plans last May. Stadiums, arenas and ballparks may
operate at 12 percent capacity after submitting plans to the
Department of Public Health, an allowance that the Bruins,
Celtics and Red Sox plan to take advantage of. Also effective
Monday, gathering limits for event venues and public settings
will rise to 100 people indoors and 150 outside. For private
residences, the caps will remain at 25 people outside and 10
people inside. Overnight summer camps will be allowed to open,
exhibition and convention halls will be able to operate subject
to the gathering limits, and dance floors will be permitted at
weddings and other events.
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
GRADUATED INCOME TAX: Pioneer Institute and Mass. The High Tech
Council hosts a virtual panel to "discuss the graduated income
tax proposal in Massachusetts and the impact of differential
taxation on high earners in different states." Jane Steinmetz,
office managing principal of Ernst & Young and a High Tech
Council executive committee member, and Stanford University
finance professor Joshua Rauh will chat following the lead of
moderator Doug Banks, executive editor of Boston Business
Journal. Late last year, the High Tech Council and a giant chunk
of the Massachusetts business community sent a letter reminding
legislative leaders that "barriers to exit for Massachusetts
employers and employees has never been lower" given the way the
COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally changed work for millions of
people, and that the fragile economy "requires a go-slow
approach to new taxes on business." Many Democrats and
progressive advocacy groups in Massachusetts are pushing to
impose a wealth tax on annual household income over $1 million.
Lawmakers on Beacon Hill could vote as soon as this spring to
let voters decide in 2022 whether to add a 4 percent surtax on
household income over $1 million. (Wednesday, 2 p.m.)
|
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
|
