 |
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, April 26, 2021
More ramifications of a Grad Tax,
and more
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
The state constitutional amendment promoted by the
Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Service Employees
International Union to add a 4 percent surtax to all annual
income above $1 million will adversely impact a significant
number of pass-through businesses, ultimately slowing the
Commonwealth’s economic recovery from COVID-19, according to
a new study published by Pioneer Institute.
If the surtax passes, it will apply to as many as 13,430 of
the state’s pass-through entities. These are often small
businesses structured as S corporations, sole
proprietorships and partnerships, which pay taxes via their
owners’ personal returns. Proponents claim the surtax would
only affect Massachusetts’ highest-paid corporate
executives, but in reality, many independent business owners
will also be directly affected.
“The past year has been a historically difficult time for a
lot of ‘Main Street’ business owners in Massachusetts,” said
Nina Weiss, who authored “The Graduated Income Tax Trap – A
Tax on Small Businesses,” with Greg Sullivan. “This is a
time when we should be prioritizing the resilience of the
state’s economy and getting people back to work, not raising
taxes on small businesses.”
Before the pandemic, Massachusetts saw significant growth
driven by pass-through entities. From 2010 to 2018, the
number of pass-through employers in the Commonwealth grew by
11.3 percent. By 2018, they accounted for 57.1 percent of
Massachusetts’ private sector workforce. Nationally,
pass-through entities represent 95 percent of businesses....
“Promoters of the surtax always point to its impact on some
nebulous ‘millionaire,” said Pioneer Institute Executive
Director Jim Stergios. “The tax will impact many more people
and small businesses, and through them, tens of thousands of
employees. The state economy is at a crossroads, and our
elected leaders will either prioritize job creation and
investments in our future, or at the expense of recovering
small businesses, they will choose to prioritize public
sector employment, which is a relatively small portion of
the Massachusetts workforce.”
Pioneer Institute
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
The Graduated Income Tax Trap:
A Tax On Small Businesses
From 2010 to 2018, the number of pass-through employers in
the state grew by 11.3%. By 2018, they accounted for 57.1%
of Massachusetts’ private sector workforce.
“The past year has been a historically difficult time for a
lot of ‘Main Street’ business owners in Massachusetts,” said
Nina Weiss, who wrote the
Pioneer report with Greg Sullivan. “This is a time when
we should be prioritizing the resilience of the state’s
economy and getting people back to work, not raising taxes
on small businesses.”
The millionaires tax could also deter future entrepreneurs
from starting businesses here, they write in the report.
Lawmakers this session are likely to advance a ballot
initiative that would propose a constitutional amendment to
impose the surtax.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Massachusetts millionaires tax would ‘adversely impact’ many
small businesses: Report
It would slow the state’s recovery from COVID-19, according
to the report
As President Joe Biden makes his move to tax the rich, the
rich are getting ready to move — literally.
According to Bloomberg, Biden will propose almost doubling
the capital gains tax rate for wealthy individuals to 39.6%
to help pay for a spate of social spending, according to
people familiar with the proposal.
For those earning $1 million or more, the new top rate,
coupled with an existing surtax on investment income, means
that federal tax rates for wealthy investors could be as
high as 43.4%.
Hikes such as this have been anticipated by top bracketeers
since Biden won the 2020 election, sparking speculation and
exploration of leaving to more tax-friendly countries.
The number of US citizens looking to renounce nationality
will increase “dramatically” an adviser handling high net
worth individuals told
WealthBriefing.com....
According to Americans Overseas, a Europe-based organization
specializing in U.S. tax preparation, a record 6,705
Americans gave up their citizenship in 2020, up by 260% from
2019.
As the number of wealthy individuals thins as more seek to
avoid being in the high tax bull’s-eye, the question then
becomes who to soak next to pay for new social programs?
The middle class should sleep with one eye open.
A Boston Herald editorial
Friday, April 23, 2021
When the taxes move higher, the taxed get moving
If you live in Massachusetts, odds are you pay a lot more in
state and local taxes than the average American does.
Massachusetts residents ranked sixth in state and local
taxes paid in fiscal year 2018, according to
data released by the Tax Foundation last week. The
average Bay Stater paid $7,006 in state and local taxes.
That also ranked second among New England states. Only
Connecticut ranked ahead ($8,494) — and second in the
country overall.
“As state lawmakers begin the budget process, they should be
cautious that Massachusetts taxpayers are already among the
most generous in New England and in the country,”
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul Craney said in
a press release on the matter. “Even if State House leaders
do not include any new tax hikes in this year’s budget, our
taxpayers are already stretched thin. Sustained increases in
state spending, continued refusals to make state government
more efficient, and no tax relief are all contributing
factors to Massachusetts getting to this point.”
The New Boston Post
Wednesday, April 21, 2021
Massachusetts Residents Have One Of The Highest Tax Burdens
In The Country
Since MassFiscal was founded in 2012, we have sounded the
alarm to the state’s rapid level of growth under former
Speaker Robert DeLeo and now it appears Speaker Ron Mariano
will follow in his footsteps. Speaker Mariano was first
sworn into office in 1992, and for nearly 29 years he has
consistently voted to increase the size of state government.
He has never shown any regard for paying down the state’s
debt, lowering the cost of doing business or living in
Massachusetts. Last week, Speaker Mariano’s House Ways and
Means Committee released its first initial state budget
coming in at $47.6 billion. That puts the total at $1.3B, or
a 2.6% increase over last year’s spending according to The
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Speaker Mariano is a career politician who voted for the
controversial 2017 pay raise and he’s seen his
taxpayer-funded paycheck increase nearly 64% during the last
five years. In comparison, the state budget has increased
over 20% during that time. It is clear, the leadership may
change, but their insatiable appetite for spending taxpayer
money never changes.
A big question we anticipate every year during budget season
tends to be “Are there any new taxes?” Luckily, for now, we
can say no. So, how is Speaker Mariano going to pay for his
hefty new budget? He relies on the continued increases in
tax revenue collections (56.6% of total budget resources),
as well as some increased reimbursements from the Biden
administration....
Last year, the state dipped into the rainy-day fund, as no
one knew what the early days of the pandemic would bring.
However, the state collected more tax money than what they
anticipated and now the Biden administration is showering
Massachusetts with billions of dollars.
Speaker Mariano and his leadership team should never
consider continuing the practice of increasing state
spending and dipping into the state’s depleted rainy-day
fund while tax collections are coming in ahead, but they do
it because no one objects. There’s hardly any debate, let
alone transparency in the budget process.
The speaker’s budget doles out cash with some skeptical
practices like additional spending on reimbursing school
districts to help them “stabilize” for a significant
decrease in enrollment. Yes, that’s right, fewer students to
teach but more money to teach them. For the Massachusetts
Teachers’ Union and their sympathetic lawmakers, this is
economics.
Overall, if you are used to worse budgets and are thinking
“it could be worse,” well, we still have time for that. The
House is expected to debate the budget soon. If history
repeats itself, it will mean a whole lot of closed-door
horse trading and very little actual debate in the public
eye. Followed with a rubber-stamped vote of approval by the
Democratic majority and no dissent by Republican Minority
Leader Jones and his Republican leadership team. Let’s hope
I am wrong, and Jones finds a newfound courage that was
missing under the previous speaker.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Speaker Mariano stays course on costly mega-budgets
By Paul Craney
Quasi-state agencies — home to pay that tops $700,000 — are
viewed as “shrouded in secrecy” with many still not sharing
their payrolls with the comptroller’s office.
The Herald has just posted 16 of the quasi wages from the
likes of Massport and the Convention Center Authority to
pension and housing boards. But at least a dozen more remain
in the dark.
“The Legislature should come down very hard and require some
level of transparency,” said Greg Sullivan of the Pioneer
Institute, a former state inspector general. “These agencies
were created for a public purpose, but they consider
themselves to be above the rest of the state.”...
Pioneer’s Sullivan said he was on a task force set up by
former Gov. Deval Patrick to look into quasi-state agencies.
He was a state inspector general then, but all his
recommendations went to the Legislature — where they have
gathered dust.
“These agencies are shrouded in secrecy,” he added, “and act
as if they are a fourth branch of government.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Massachusetts quasi-state agencies clock sky-high pay
Primary Enforcement of the Seat Belt Law (S-1591)
— Allows police officers
to issue tickets for seat belt violations even if the driver
is not first stopped for another violation as required under
current law. Other provisions prevent officers from
searching the vehicle or occupants solely because of the
seat belt violation and prohibit a seat belt violation from
resulting in a surcharge on motor vehicle insurance
premiums. The fine for drivers and passengers over the age
of 16 who violate the law would be increased from $25 to
$50. The current additional $25 fine on the driver for each
passenger between the ages of 12 and 16 who is not wearing a
seatbelt would also rise to $50....
“The Rite of Spring has now arrived with another mandatory
seat belt law bill,” said Chip Ford, executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, who got
his start in political activism leading the ballot campaign
to repeal the non-primary seat belt law in 1986. “Like a
persistent weed it sprouts anew each spring and needs to be
eradicated,” Ford added. “Another law was immediately
proposed in 1987 and every spring thereafter until it was
again imposed in 1994, again with the promise it would never
become a primary offense. Yet that too has tenaciously
bloomed year after year. If that promise is broken, the next
step — always the goal of the insurance industry lobby —
will be imposition of the insurance surcharge. Experience
has painfully taught us the value of a legislative promise.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
April 12-16, 2021
Primary Enforcement of the Seat Belt Law (S-1591)
The Bay State has banned civilians from purchasing or owning
assault weapons and high-capacity magazines for decades, but
companies like Smith & Wesson, headquartered in Springfield,
can still build them here and sell them elsewhere.
Backed by parents who lost children to mass shootings and
the Stop Handgun Violence organization, a group of
Democratic lawmakers launched an effort Tuesday to change
that dynamic, filing legislation that would extend the
existing assault weapon ban to cover their manufacture for
civilian use as well.
The proposal drew immediate criticism from gun ownership
advocates, who described it as misguided and insufficient to
address underlying causes of violence.
Sandy Phillips, whose daughter, Jessica Redfield Ghawi, was
killed in the Aurora shooting, said Tuesday that gun
violence victims and their families have been unable to
convince manufacturers to stop producing military-style
weapons.
"These weapons are made in your state, but they can't be
sold in your state, so in effect, Massachusetts is exporting
bloodshed to the rest of the country," Phillips said at a
virtual press conference alongside Massachusetts lawmakers.
"There are no reasons other than the pleas of Americans for
them to do anything to stop the carnage. Legislation is the
only way."
The bill (HD 4192 / SD 2588) filed Tuesday would prohibit
Massachusetts companies such as Smith & Wesson from
manufacturing assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
covered under the state's existing ban on their purchase and
possession. Anything manufactured to be sold to law
enforcement, the military or foreign governments would be
exempt from the newly proposed ban, and handguns -- which
are used in a vast majority of gun violence -- would not be
affected.
Massachusetts first implemented a state ban on assault
weapons in 1998, when a similar federal law was already in
place. In 2004, Republican Gov. Mitt Romney signed a
permanent ban into law shortly before the federal policy
expired.
Supporters described the ability of Massachusetts companies
to manufacture weapons they are banned from selling in the
state as a "loophole" in the current law. Lawmakers who
filed the new bill said banning the manufacture of most
assault weapons would help reduce the toll of gun violence,
particularly mass shootings, elsewhere in America....
Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action
League, said his group opposes the latest proposal and the
state's existing ban on the purchase of assault weapons.
"We oppose the ban itself because it's not based on anything
that's actually safety-related," Wallace said in an
interview on Tuesday. "It's more political agenda and what I
call social bigotry against gun owners by people who don't
understand what's going on." ...
Smith & Wesson, which did not respond to an immediate
request for comment, is one of the top firearm manufacturers
nationwide. In the most recent financial quarter, the
company reported selling more than 600,000 guns and
accessories, more than double its sales a year ago, WBUR
reported last week....
It's also unclear what impact the manufacturing ban would
have on the state's economy and jobs outlook, in large part
because the production breakdown between assault weapons and
other permissible weapons and devices is not widely known.
Asked about the chances that Smith & Wesson or another
company could leave Massachusetts in response to the bill,
Manuel Oliver, whose son, Joaquin, died in the Parkland
shooting, replied that the focus should be on saving
lives....
The bill could emerge as the center of the first major gun
control debate under House Speaker Ronald Mariano, who rose
to the top position following former Speaker Robert DeLeo's
departure in December.
Decker noted that Mariano, as majority leader, played an
important role in generating support for previous gun
control legislation, and he recently called on Congress to
follow the lead of Massachusetts and pass more restrictive
national gun laws.
State House News Service
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
State Gun Makers Accused of “Exporting Bloodshed” to the
Nation
Calls Build for Ban on Assault Weapon Manufacturing
What a snob!
Ever met someone and had that reaction? Maybe it’s the way
they hold their glass of wine, instructing you on how to
properly appreciate the aroma. Or the smug way they inform
you that actually, the artist Edward Munch’s name doesn’t
rhyme with bunch.
It could also be the way they manage to insert their
illustrative ivy league education into every conversation.
Whatever it is, when you see it you know.
Since we like to rank things here, we set out to find where
in the US snobbiness reigns prime— and where snobbery will
make you stand out like a sore thumb.
Snobbiest States:
1. Massachusetts
2. Vermont
3. Connecticut
4. New York
5. New Hampshire
6. Rhode Island
7. California
8. Oregon
9. Maine
10. Virginia
Looks like the northeast may have a smug problem.
Keep reading to see where all 50 states landed and what
makes these 10 states so snobby.
Zippia — The Career Expert
April 16, 2021
The Snobbiest States
The next time you’re scratching a lottery ticket, do raise
your pinkie — we’ve got a reputation to uphold.
According to the career site Zippia, Massachusetts is the
snobbiest state in America....
What we do have, as Zippia’s data underscores, is a large
number of elites — those with lofty degrees from A-list
colleges and well-paying careers at universities or in
politics who consider themselves more than qualified to
decide how the non-elite should live.
No wonder we drink so much wine.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, April 21, 2021
Just who are you calling snobs?
When lawmakers file into the House Chamber or tune in
virtually Monday, the next step of the budget process will
get underway as representatives plan to take up the House
Ways and Means fiscal 2022 budget proposal (H 4000). With
over 1,150 amendments filed, the debate should play out over
several days, starting with amendments that would impact the
amount of revenue the state can expect to collect next year.
Thursday's session was pro forma, without a single vote
taken. The House is back at 10 a.m. on Monday for a full
formal session.
State House News Service
Thursday, April 22, 2021
House Session Summary - Thursday, April 22, 2021
House In and Out Ahead of Next Week's Budget Debate
The situation in Plainville regarding cuts in services and
the recent decision by voters to not increase taxes to fund
those services is a great illustration of the real power and
effects of a law many people today don’t even remember and
even fewer understand — Proposition 2½.
That particular tax-cutting law was passed in the early
1980s when property taxes in local communities throughout
Massachusetts were soaring out of control. Prior to
Proposition 2½, the mayor/city council or the town meeting
in a community would vote a budget each year. The only limit
to what they could spend was whatever the legislative branch
would approve. If town meeting voted through a large tax
increase to fund projects or departments, then it was done.
Even though it was the people themselves through town
meeting that were voting these increases, it was declared
something had to be done to protect them against themselves.
So, led by a group called Citizens for Limited Taxation, a
proposal was put on the ballot limiting the total amount a
town could raise by taxation (called the tax levy) by 2½
percent each year, plus any new construction or growth the
previous year.
Some believe the 2½ percent figure was the result of
detailed study and research. But it was just a number those
petitioners felt was proper. Nowhere in their proposal was
there a mechanism for adjusting the percentage over time in
response to inflationary factors.
Today, folks in Massachusetts seem to think the 2½ percent
number was in the original state constitution, rather than
simply an arbitrary choice....
And overrides. Which in the minds of most people translates
into failure. They might as well have designated them
“Disgrace Taxes.” In this state, an override attempt is
almost universally seen as an admission of mismanagement or
malfeasance, rather than a necessary correction.
Proposition 2½ did not target spendthrift politicians who
were fleecing the local property taxpayers. The law was
aimed squarely at the citizens and taxpayers themselves.
Their power to decide their own budgets at the local
legislative level was removed. It was a one-size-fits-all
solution to 351 separate and unique problems. But it did
slow the growth of property taxes.
So now towns like Plainville too often concentrate on
staying within artificial limits rather than addressing real
needs.
And now you know why overrides aren’t called “growth
adjustments.”
The Attleboro Sun Chronicle
Monday, April 19, 2021
The story behind 2½
by Bill Gouveia
A quiet settled over Beacon Hill and the State House this
week. And for a change, it was supposed to be that way.
The rhythms of the State House, and the bars, restaurants
and lunch counters that cater to the capitol crowd, have
been off beat for more than a year. The building itself is
still closed to the public.
But as another Patriots' Day came and went without marathon
runners to cheer up Heartbreak Hill and to cheer to the
Boylston Street finish line, at least the school-vacation
lull felt familiar.
The House on Thursday literally gaveled into session,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance and adjourned, the branch's
leaders busy preparing, as they would have been prior to the
pandemic, for their annual budget debate.
More than 1,150 amendments have been proposed to the $47.6
billion spending plan that will hit the floor Monday, and
aside from encouraging remote participation, House Speaker
Ron Mariano's office is preparing for a typical multi-day
affair.
With the Legislature abiding by the school calendar, Gov.
Charlie Baker hit the road toward the end of the week after
welcoming the national champion UMass Amherst men's hockey
team to the State House on Tuesday for an outdoor
celebration of their first title....
White House senior advisor Andy Slavitt called attention on
Friday to the list, which includes every New England state
except Rhode Island, along with New Jersey, New Mexico and
Hawaii.
"All of them have turned the corner on the number of cases &
hospitalizations. Well done. Let's all get there," Slavitt
tweeted.
Incidentally, it was Rhode Island that was also getting
picked on a day earlier by the conservative Massachusetts
Fiscal Alliance as part of the group's efforts to urge Baker
to lift all remaining COVID-19 restrictions on businesses,
such as capacity limits.
New Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee had just announced that,
like some other states in the region, the Ocean State would
gradually remove all capacity limits on businesses by
Memorial Day and eliminate the outdoor mask mandate.
"Even Rhode Island gets it. Their state is just a beach with
two US Senators," said Mass Fiscal spokesman Paul Craney.
Baker hinted that he would have more to say next week about
the next steps in the state's reopening strategy, but said
he wanted to be careful that whatever he orders next doesn't
"create a bounce in the wrong direction."
"I expect we'll have some stuff to say before the end of
April, but at this point in time ... People need to continue
to follow the rules and the guidance," Baker said.
State House News Service
Friday, April 23, 2021
Weekly Roundup - The Old Normal
Most of the Beacon Hill action next week will take place in
the House... and from wherever each representative dials in.
Though the House budget debate is returning to its usual
slot on the calendar this April, that could be one of the
only normal parts of the process as the House considers the
Ways and Means Committee's $47.65 billion budget for fiscal
year 2022, which starts July 1.
The House will gavel in at 10 a.m. Monday and expects to
begin roll call votes at 11 a.m. Representatives have been
told to plan for budget sessions starting at 10 a.m. on
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and to hold Thursday and
Friday open for potential sessions. Though some lawmakers
will be present in the House Chamber, Speaker Ron Mariano's
office urged reps to participate remotely because of the
persistently high number of COVID-19 cases in Massachusetts.
The private amendment haggling sessions that used to take
place in the Members Lounge will take place remotely again
this year. Debate will begin with any amendments that would
alter the budget's revenue base before the Ways and Means
Committee begins the process of consolidating amendments
into bundles to more efficiently dispense with the
proposals.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation analyzed the 1,157
amendments that representatives suggested for the Ways and
Means Committee's spending plan. Of those amendments, 945
have a known fiscal impact. If the House were to adopt every
one of those amendments, the branch would add $1.04 billion
in additional spending during the floor debate, MTF said....
END OF SOME RESTRICTIONS?: Gov. Baker hinted Thursday that
he'll have some kind of an announcement related to personal
and economic COVID-19 restrictions to make next week.
Business groups like the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts have been clamoring for the governor to loosen
restrictions and Baker could use his speech to the Metro
South Chamber of Commerce next Friday to deliver the news.
The governors in neighboring New Hampshire, Connecticut and
Rhode Island have all made announcements about the end of
certain COVID-19 mitigation strategies -- like the
requirement to wear a mask when outdoors -- but Baker said
he remains focused on the state's vaccine rollout. "I expect
we'll have some stuff to say before the end of April, but at
this point in time ... people need to continue to follow the
rules and the guidance," he said.
New Hampshire last week allowed its public mask mandate to
expire, Connecticut announced plans to phase out all
business restrictions by May 19 and Rhode Island Gov. Daniel
McKee said Thursday he will incrementally increase capacity
limits for all businesses in the Ocean State until they are
eliminated by Memorial Day weekend....
CENSUS DATA RELEASE: The number of Congressional seats that
each state will have for the next decade will become clear
next week when the U.S. Census Bureau releases the
apportionment data that the federal government uses to
divide the 435 seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives....
After losing one seat following the 2010 Census,
Massachusetts this cycle is expected to retain its nine
House seats, all of which are currently held by Democrats.
State House News Service
Friday, April 23, 2021
Advances - Week of April 25
With states around Massachusetts beginning to loosen some of
their personal and economic COVID-19 restrictions, Gov.
Charlie Baker said Thursday that the state's vaccination
program remains his top priority, though he'll likely have
more to say about reopening by the end of the month.
New Hampshire last week dropped its public mask mandate,
Connecticut announced plans to phase out all business
restrictions by May 19 and new Rhode Island Gov. Daniel
McKee said Thursday he would incrementally increase capacity
limits for all businesses in the Ocean State until they are
eliminated by Memorial Day weekend....
"I expect we'll have some stuff to say before the end of
April, but at this point in time, I'm with the mayor. People
need to continue to follow the rules and the guidance,"
Baker responded when asked about reopening after a tour of a
Berkshire regional vaccinate site with Pittsfield Mayor
Linda Tyer.
Jon Hurst, president of Retailers Association of
Massachusetts, recently argued that with Massachusetts among
the national leaders in vaccinations the state should roll
back all remaining business restrictions by Memorial Day.
State House News Service
Thursday, April 22, 2021
Further Reopening Not Top-of-Mind for Baker
Guv 'Going to Continue to Press' for More Vaccine Doses
Too bad the movie title “Groundhog Day” is already taken,
because it would be the perfect description of a film about
Gov. Charlie Baker’s endless reruns of self-pitying,
sanctimonious, delusional, hysterical, disingenuous press
conferences.
For my radio show, I’ve collected hundreds of sound cuts
from the bumbling beta male who Joe Biden calls Charlie
Parker, or the stiff who Sen. Ed Markey calls Charlie Bacon.
Parker says the same thing, over and over and over again.
But nothing ever changes. The goal posts keep shifting....
He sounds like LBJ babbling about Vietnam. Yet Charlie Baker
never gets called out on any of this. His handling of this
has been a disaster at every turn, yet he brags about his
managerial prowess, and the amen chorus that is the Boston
media laps it up with a spoon....
On Sept. 9, 2020, Charlie delivered at least his fifth
update on COVID-19’s vacation status.
“As we’ve said, COVID didn’t take the summer off and we
don’t expect it to take off the fall, either. We’ll still be
fighting until there’s a treatment or a vaccine.”
Now, of course, the vaccine won’t be nearly enough. On
Thursday, Charlie Parker changed the rules yet again and
said his subjects will all be needing a booster because,
well, the show must go on.
Just as we can’t even begin to think about dismantling the
police state apparatus — it all depends on the variants, or
is it mutants, or is it double mutant-variants? ...
It’s getting warmer, right? People — excuse me, “folks” —
just want to relax and enjoy themselves, especially since
the only real danger they face is from Charlie’s senseless
lockdowns and Karen vigilantes.
So Charlie keeps shouting out his diktats — fun is still
verboten in Maskachusetts, comrades! You must remain
miserable and afraid — or else!
“Don’t let a few nice days step on that!”
That was May 25, 2020.
“We do need to be vigilant and keep our guard up with regard
to COVID generally as the weather gets nicer.”
That was March 17, 2021.
On Feb. 18, 2021, Bacon said his hair was on fire. Surely,
given his mendacity over the past year, he meant to say his
pants were on fire. But of all the hundreds of whoppers he’s
put out over the last 14 months, this one from Dec. 15,
2020, may be the biggest:
“I can’t emphasize enough that this is not forever. This is
once. One time, one month, one year.”
Would that it were, as John Kerry used to say — would that
it were. Actually, we are now in the second year, the 14th
month of this farce and it totally feels like forever.
When will Groundhog Day Part II ever end?
The Boston Herald
Sunday, April 25, 2021
Massachusetts in coronavirus ‘Groundhog Day’ with Charlie
Baker
By Howie Carr |
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Last Monday Pioneer
Institute released another of its reports after studying the latest
incarnation of a graduated income tax constitutional amendment, aka the
"Millionaires Tax," or "Fair Share Amendment. Pioneer is doing a
masterful job of digging deep into its ramifications if ever adopted.
This morning before getting back to work on this Update started on
Saturday I checked my email and found another Pioneer report released
today ("Study Warns Massachusetts Tax Proposal Would Deter Investment,
Stifling the 'Innovation Economy'”). I want to get this Update out
ASAP so will report to you on the newest report next week later.
In its report released
last week ("The Graduated Income
Tax Trap: A Tax On Small Businesses) Pioneer Institute found:
The state constitutional amendment promoted by
the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Service Employees
International Union to add a 4 percent surtax to all annual income
above $1 million will adversely impact a significant number of
pass-through businesses, ultimately slowing the Commonwealth’s
economic recovery from COVID-19, according to a new study published
by Pioneer Institute.
If the surtax passes, it will apply to as many
as 13,430 of the state’s pass-through entities. These are often
small businesses structured as S corporations, sole proprietorships
and partnerships, which pay taxes via their owners’ personal
returns. Proponents claim the surtax would only affect
Massachusetts’ highest-paid corporate executives, but in reality,
many independent business owners will also be directly affected.
“The past year has been a historically
difficult time for a lot of ‘Main Street’ business owners in
Massachusetts,” said Nina Weiss, who authored “The Graduated Income
Tax Trap – A Tax on Small Businesses,” with Greg Sullivan. “This is
a time when we should be prioritizing the resilience of the state’s
economy and getting people back to work, not raising taxes on small
businesses.”
Before the pandemic, Massachusetts saw
significant growth driven by pass-through entities. From 2010 to
2018, the number of pass-through employers in the Commonwealth grew
by 11.3 percent. By 2018, they accounted for 57.1 percent of
Massachusetts’ private sector workforce. Nationally, pass-through
entities represent 95 percent of businesses....
“Promoters of the surtax always point to its
impact on some nebulous ‘millionaire,” said Pioneer Institute
Executive Director Jim Stergios. “The tax will impact many more
people and small businesses, and through them, tens of thousands of
employees. The state economy is at a crossroads, and our elected
leaders will either prioritize job creation and investments in our
future, or at the expense of recovering small businesses, they will
choose to prioritize public sector employment, which is a relatively
small portion of the Massachusetts workforce.”
A Boston Herald
editorial on Tuesday ("Massachusetts
millionaires tax would ‘adversely impact’ many small businesses:
Report") noted:
From 2010 to 2018, the number of
pass-through employers in the state grew by 11.3%. By
2018, they accounted for 57.1% of Massachusetts’ private
sector workforce.
“The past year has been a
historically difficult time for a lot of ‘Main Street’
business owners in Massachusetts,” said Nina Weiss, who
wrote the
Pioneer report with Greg Sullivan. “This is a time
when we should be prioritizing the resilience of the
state’s economy and getting people back to work, not
raising taxes on small businesses.”
The millionaires tax could also
deter future entrepreneurs from starting businesses
here, they write in the report.
Lawmakers this session are likely
to advance a ballot initiative that would propose a
constitutional amendment to impose the surtax.
Beacon Hill pols'
insatiable gluttony for always more taxes regardless of economic
consequences will inevitably bring on the collapse of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.
The Washington DC-based
Tax Foundation released a
report last week as well comparing tax burdens in the fifty states.
Massachusetts ranked sixth-highest in the nation at
$7,006 in state and local taxes per average Massachusetts resident.
In all of the New England states only Connecticut was worse, at $8,494
per Nutmeg State resident.
The New Boston Post reported on Wednesday ("Massachusetts
Residents Have One Of The Highest Tax Burdens In The Country"):
If you live in Massachusetts, odds
are you pay a lot more in state and local taxes than the
average American does.
Massachusetts residents ranked
sixth in state and local taxes paid in fiscal year 2018,
according to
data released by the Tax Foundation last week. The
average Bay Stater paid $7,006 in state and local taxes.
That also ranked second among New England states. Only
Connecticut ranked ahead ($8,494) — and second in the
country overall.
“As state lawmakers begin the
budget process, they should be cautious that
Massachusetts taxpayers are already among the most
generous in New England and in the country,”
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul Craney said
in a press release on the matter. “Even if State House
leaders do not include any new tax hikes in this year’s
budget, our taxpayers are already stretched thin.
Sustained increases in state spending, continued
refusals to make state government more efficient, and no
tax relief are all contributing factors to Massachusetts
getting to this point.”
When I looked over the
chart and information — as I always do now
when coming across such state comparisons — I was
rewarded to find that Kentucky ranks 40th at $3,974 per resident; $3,032
less than taken from Bay State taxpayers ranked at #6. (My property tax here is
$1,400/year compared to the $6,000 I was paying to the Town of
Marblehead while a subject of Massachusetts, which alone is a savings of
$4,600 every year.) It doesn't need to be The Massachusetts Way.
In a Boston Herald
op-ed column on Tuesday ("Speaker
Mariano stays course on costly mega-budgets") MassFiscal
spokesman Paul Craney wrote:
Since MassFiscal was founded in
2012, we have sounded the alarm to the state’s rapid
level of growth under former Speaker Robert DeLeo and
now it appears Speaker Ron Mariano will follow in his
footsteps. Speaker Mariano was first sworn into office
in 1992, and for nearly 29 years he has consistently
voted to increase the size of state government. He has
never shown any regard for paying down the state’s debt,
lowering the cost of doing business or living in
Massachusetts. Last week, Speaker Mariano’s House Ways
and Means Committee released its first initial state
budget coming in at $47.6 billion. That puts the total
at $1.3B, or a 2.6% increase over last year’s spending
according to The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Speaker Mariano is a career
politician who voted for the controversial 2017 pay
raise and he’s seen his taxpayer-funded paycheck
increase nearly 64% during the last five years. In
comparison, the state budget has increased over 20%
during that time. It is clear, the leadership may
change, but their insatiable appetite for spending
taxpayer money never changes.
A big question we anticipate every
year during budget season tends to be “Are there any new
taxes?” Luckily, for now, we can say no. So, how is
Speaker Mariano going to pay for his hefty new budget?
He relies on the continued increases in tax revenue
collections (56.6% of total budget resources), as well
as some increased reimbursements from the Biden
administration....
Last year, the state dipped into
the rainy-day fund, as no one knew what the early days
of the pandemic would bring. However, the state
collected more tax money than what they anticipated and
now the Biden administration is showering Massachusetts
with billions of dollars.
Speaker Mariano and his leadership
team should never consider continuing the practice of
increasing state spending and dipping into the state’s
depleted rainy-day fund while tax collections are coming
in ahead, but they do it because no one objects. There’s
hardly any debate, let alone transparency in the budget
process.
The speaker’s budget doles out cash
with some skeptical practices like additional spending
on reimbursing school districts to help them “stabilize”
for a significant decrease in enrollment. Yes, that’s
right, fewer students to teach but more money to teach
them. For the Massachusetts Teachers’ Union and their
sympathetic lawmakers, this is economics.
Overall, if you are used to worse
budgets and are thinking “it could be worse,” well, we
still have time for that. The House is expected to
debate the budget soon. If history repeats itself, it
will mean a whole lot of closed-door horse trading and
very little actual debate in the public eye. Followed
with a rubber-stamped vote of approval by the Democratic
majority and no dissent by Republican Minority Leader
Jones and his Republican leadership team. Let’s hope I
am wrong, and Jones finds a newfound courage that was
missing under the previous speaker.
I was called this
morning by Christian Wade, Statehouse reporter for The Salem News and
its sister newspapers, on a constitutional amendment proposed by Senate
Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) that would cap the income tax
at not more than 6.25 percent (S-23)
that is being heard today before the Joint Committee on Revenue.
What did I think about it?
I told Christian that
any cap is better than no cap, but 6.25 percent is where the "temporary"
income tax hike of 1989 was set a year later in 1990 and it took CLT two
statewide petition drives and thirty years to get it back down to 5
percent just last year. I added that besides that, the three
Republicans in the Senate and 30 in the House are not going to drive a
constitutional amendment to limit taxes through a supermajority of
tax-hungry "woke" Democrats, so aren't we really both wasting our time
discussing it?
The Boston Herald
reported on Tuesday ("Massachusetts
quasi-state agencies clock sky-high pay"):
Quasi-state agencies — home to pay that tops
$700,000 — are viewed as “shrouded in secrecy” with many still not
sharing their payrolls with the comptroller’s office.
The Herald has just posted 16 of the quasi
wages from the likes of Massport and the Convention Center Authority
to pension and housing boards. But at least a dozen more remain in
the dark.
“The Legislature should come down very hard and
require some level of transparency,” said Greg Sullivan of the
Pioneer Institute, a former state inspector general. “These agencies
were created for a public purpose, but they consider themselves to
be above the rest of the state.”...
Pioneer’s Sullivan said he was on a task force
set up by former Gov. Deval Patrick to look into quasi-state
agencies. He was a state inspector general then, but all his
recommendations went to the Legislature — where they have gathered
dust.
“These agencies are shrouded in secrecy,” he
added, “and act as if they are a fourth branch of government.”
Is there anyone out there still wondering why taxes need to
keep increasing? What'll happen to all those salaries
and gravy-train pensions when the state completely implodes,
financially collapses?
It can't
go on forever — and it won't.
My
political baptism by fire occurred in 1985-86. I was happily
wiling away my life as a freelance sign-painter without a care in the
world. A talk-radio junkie of sorts, I somehow got roped in by
WRKO's Jerry Williams to help with repealing the mandatory seat belt
law. The next thing I knew I was leading the repeal ballot
committee, starving and working around the clock for freedom.
Thirty five years later and little has changed but that I'm now
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation working around the
clock for taxpayers in a state I managed to escape.
Beacon Hill Roll Call reported on Friday (Week of April
12-16, 2021 — Primary Enforcement of the
Seat Belt Law [S-1591]):
Primary Enforcement of the Seat Belt Law (S-1591) —
Allows police officers to issue tickets for seat belt
violations even if the driver is not first stopped for
another violation as required under current law. Other
provisions prevent officers from searching the vehicle
or occupants solely because of the seat belt violation
and prohibit a seat belt violation from resulting in a
surcharge on motor vehicle insurance premiums. The fine
for drivers and passengers over the age of 16 who
violate the law would be increased from $25 to $50. The
current additional $25 fine on the driver for each
passenger between the ages of 12 and 16 who is not
wearing a seatbelt would also rise to $50....
“The Rite of Spring has now arrived
with another mandatory seat belt law bill,” said Chip
Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, who got his start in political activism
leading the ballot campaign to repeal the non-primary
seat belt law in 1986. “Like a persistent weed it
sprouts anew each spring and needs to be eradicated,”
Ford added. “Another law was immediately proposed in
1987 and every spring thereafter until it was again
imposed in 1994, again with the promise it would never
become a primary offense. Yet that too has tenaciously
bloomed year after year. If that promise is broken, the
next step — always the goal of the insurance industry
lobby — will be imposition of the insurance surcharge.
Experience has painfully taught us the value of a
legislative promise.”
One thing certain about liberals, progressives, and
Democrats in general: They never surrender, just keep
coming back for more, more, always more, one bite at a time
if that's what it takes for however long it takes to have
their way — decades if
necessary. Mandatory seat belt laws, a graduated
income tax, whatever they lust for. "Not only no but
even Hell No!" is never acceptable for them.
Another
example of liberal intransigence was reported by the State House News
Service on Tuesday ("State Gun Makers
Accused of “Exporting Bloodshed” to the Nation —
Calls Build for Ban on Assault Weapon Manufacturing"), another
example of coming back for more, more, always more until they have it
all. It's no longer enough for them to ban firearms in The
People's Republic of Maskachusetts but now they want to ban
manufacturing of them for sale outside the state:
The Bay State has banned civilians
from purchasing or owning assault weapons and
high-capacity magazines for decades, but companies like
Smith & Wesson, headquartered in Springfield, can still
build them here and sell them elsewhere.
Backed by parents who lost children
to mass shootings and the Stop Handgun Violence
organization, a group of Democratic lawmakers launched
an effort Tuesday to change that dynamic, filing
legislation that would extend the existing assault
weapon ban to cover their manufacture for civilian use
as well.
The proposal drew immediate
criticism from gun ownership advocates, who described it
as misguided and insufficient to address underlying
causes of violence.
Sandy Phillips, whose daughter,
Jessica Redfield Ghawi, was killed in the Aurora
shooting, said Tuesday that gun violence victims and
their families have been unable to convince
manufacturers to stop producing military-style weapons.
"These weapons are made in your
state, but they can't be sold in your state, so in
effect, Massachusetts is exporting bloodshed to the rest
of the country," Phillips said at a virtual press
conference alongside Massachusetts lawmakers. "There are
no reasons other than the pleas of Americans for them to
do anything to stop the carnage. Legislation is the only
way."
The bill (HD 4192 / SD 2588) filed
Tuesday would prohibit Massachusetts companies such as
Smith & Wesson from manufacturing assault weapons and
high-capacity magazines covered under the state's
existing ban on their purchase and possession. Anything
manufactured to be sold to law enforcement, the military
or foreign governments would be exempt from the newly
proposed ban, and handguns -- which are used in a vast
majority of gun violence -- would not be affected.
Massachusetts first implemented a
state ban on assault weapons in 1998, when a similar
federal law was already in place. In 2004, Republican
Gov. Mitt Romney signed a permanent ban into law shortly
before the federal policy expired.
Supporters described the ability of
Massachusetts companies to manufacture weapons they are
banned from selling in the state as a "loophole" in the
current law.
"Mitt
Romney signed a permanent ban into law." That must have been
before he became "severely
conservative" while running as the Republican nominee for U.S.
president in 2012 — though he claimed he
was such while serving as governor of Massachusetts. What an
incredible fraud he became, but that's what gets a pass in Massachusetts
as a "Republican."
"What
a snob!" That's how Zippia — The Career Expert
reported on Massachusetts in its April 16 report "The Snobbiest States"
a new distinction for the Bay State:
What a snob!
Ever met someone and had that
reaction? Maybe it’s the way they hold their glass of
wine, instructing you on how to properly appreciate the
aroma. Or the smug way they inform you that actually,
the artist Edward Munch’s name doesn’t rhyme with bunch.
It could also be the way they
manage to insert their illustrative ivy league education
into every conversation. Whatever it is, when you see it
you know.
Since we like to rank things here,
we set out to find where in the US snobbiness reigns
prime— and where snobbery will make you stand out like a
sore thumb.
Snobbiest States:
1.
Massachusetts
2. Vermont
3. Connecticut
4. New York
5. New Hampshire
6. Rhode Island
7. California
8. Oregon
9. Maine
10. Virginia
Looks like the northeast may have a
smug problem.
Keep reading to see where all 50 states landed and
what makes these 10 states so snobby.
In defense, The Boston Herald quickly retorted in its
editorial on Wednesday ("Just
who are you calling snobs?"):
The next time you’re scratching a
lottery ticket, do raise your pinkie — we’ve got a
reputation to uphold.
According to the career site Zippia,
Massachusetts is the snobbiest state in America....
What we do have, as Zippia’s data
underscores, is a large number of elites — those with
lofty degrees from A-list colleges and well-paying
careers at universities or in politics who consider
themselves more than qualified to decide how the
non-elite should live.
No wonder we drink so much wine.
As I write
the House is in formal session beginning the debate of its fiscal year
2022 state budget, along with its 1,150 proposed amendments. On
Thursday the State House News Service reported ("House
In and Out Ahead of Next Week's Budget Debate"):
When lawmakers file into the House Chamber or tune in
virtually Monday, the next step of the budget process
will get underway as representatives plan to take up the
House Ways and Means fiscal 2022 budget proposal (H
4000). With over 1,150 amendments filed, the debate
should play out over several days, starting with
amendments that would impact the amount of revenue the
state can expect to collect next year. Thursday's
session was pro forma, without a single vote taken. The
House is back at 10 a.m. on Monday for a full formal
session.
In its
Advances on Friday, the News Service added:
Most of the Beacon Hill action next
week will take place in the House... and from wherever
each representative dials in. Though the House budget
debate is returning to its usual slot on the calendar
this April, that could be one of the only normal parts
of the process as the House considers the Ways and Means
Committee's $47.65 billion budget for fiscal year 2022,
which starts July 1.
The House will gavel in at 10 a.m.
Monday and expects to begin roll call votes at 11 a.m.
Representatives have been told to plan for budget
sessions starting at 10 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday, and to hold Thursday and Friday open for
potential sessions. Though some lawmakers will be
present in the House Chamber, Speaker Ron Mariano's
office urged reps to participate remotely because of the
persistently high number of COVID-19 cases in
Massachusetts.
The private amendment haggling
sessions that used to take place in the Members Lounge
will take place remotely again this year. Debate will
begin with any amendments that would alter the budget's
revenue base before the Ways and Means Committee begins
the process of consolidating amendments into bundles to
more efficiently dispense with the proposals.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation analyzed the 1,157 amendments that
representatives suggested for the Ways and Means
Committee's spending plan. Of those amendments, 945 have
a known fiscal impact. If the House were to adopt every
one of those amendments, the branch would add $1.04
billion in additional spending during the floor debate,
MTF said.
There is
more of interest in the full news reports below, such as Gov. Baker's
resistance to loosening of his tenacious grip on pandemic control, and
Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr's reaction in his latest column,
"Massachusetts in coronavirus ‘Groundhog Day’ with Charlie Baker."
I'll leave that to you if you're interested in reading further, as
there's already enough for many to digest.
In
closing, I'm thinking of my former colleagues and our departed friends,
Barbara Anderson and Chip Faulkner.
Chip
Faulkner was always battling with his Wrentham neighbor in Norfolk and
local columnist, liberal
Bill Gouveia, so when I came across Gouveia's latest attack
on Proposition 2½ it grabbed my attention. After reading it, I
emailed him to correct his typical error. Here's his latest
column:
The Attleboro Sun
Chronicle
Monday, April 19, 2021
The story behind 2½
by Bill Gouveia
The situation in Plainville regarding cuts in
services and the recent decision by voters to not increase taxes to
fund those services is a great illustration of the real power and
effects of a law many people today don’t even remember and even
fewer understand — Proposition 2½.
That particular tax-cutting law was passed in
the early 1980s when property taxes in local communities throughout
Massachusetts were soaring out of control. Prior to Proposition 2½,
the mayor/city council or the town meeting in a community would vote
a budget each year. The only limit to what they could spend was
whatever the legislative branch would approve. If town meeting voted
through a large tax increase to fund projects or departments, then
it was done.
Even though it was the people themselves
through town meeting that were voting these increases, it was
declared something had to be done to protect them against
themselves.
So, led by a group called Citizens for
Limited Taxation, a proposal was put on the ballot limiting the
total amount a town could raise by taxation (called the tax levy) by
2½ percent each year, plus any new construction or growth the
previous year.
Some believe the 2½ percent figure was the
result of detailed study and research. But it was just a number
those petitioners felt was proper. Nowhere in their proposal was
there a mechanism for adjusting the percentage over time in response
to inflationary factors.
Today, folks in Massachusetts seem to think the
2½ percent number was in the original state constitution, rather
than simply an arbitrary choice....
And overrides. Which in the minds of most
people translates into failure. They might as well have designated
them “Disgrace Taxes.” In this state, an override attempt is almost
universally seen as an admission of mismanagement or malfeasance,
rather than a necessary correction.
Proposition 2½ did not target spendthrift
politicians who were fleecing the local property taxpayers. The law
was aimed squarely at the citizens and taxpayers themselves. Their
power to decide their own budgets at the local legislative level was
removed. It was a one-size-fits-all solution to 351 separate and
unique problems. But it did slow the growth of property taxes.
So now towns like Plainville too often
concentrate on staying within artificial limits rather than
addressing real needs.
And now you know why overrides aren’t called
“growth adjustments.”
I wrote to
Bill:
Bill, in your
column “The story behind 2½” you incorrectly asserted:
"Today,
folks in Massachusetts seem to think the 2½ percent number was
in the original state constitution, rather than simply an
arbitrary choice.
"The
question passed, and the legislature added to it an 'override
provision' which allowed communities to vote exemptions to the
limit for certain things. Hence was the concept of 'overrides'
born, and that has hung over this local area like a shroud of
doom for 40 years."
Actually Bill,
overrides were part of Proposition 2½ as drafted and presented to
the voters on the 1980 ballot. You can read it for yourself here:
http://cltg.org/cltg/Prop_2/1980_Voter_Guide.pdf
I’m always
happy to educate those who opine on our Proposition 2½.
Chip Ford
Executive Director
Citizens for Limited Taxation
I've got to think that Chipster is looking down and laughing at my
picking up his cudgel and keeping Gouveia honest.
A Twitter
post by Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby was brought to my attention a
few days ago. CLT has a Twitter account but I don't have the time
to waste playing around with it, so missed this when it was put out.
It is another wonderful tribute to Barbara that I want to share with
you.
Click image above to read Jeff Jacoby's
remembrances
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
Full News Reports Follow
(excerpted above) |
|
Pioneer Institute
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
The Graduated Income Tax Trap:
A Tax On Small Businesses
Study Shows the Adverse Effects of Graduated Income Tax
Proposal on Small Businesses
The state constitutional amendment promoted by the
Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Service Employees
International Union to add a 4 percent surtax to all annual
income above $1 million will adversely impact a significant
number of pass-through businesses, ultimately slowing the
Commonwealth’s economic recovery from COVID-19, according to
a new study published by Pioneer Institute.
If the surtax passes, it will apply to as many as 13,430 of
the state’s pass-through entities. These are often small
businesses structured as S corporations, sole
proprietorships and partnerships, which pay taxes via their
owners’ personal returns. Proponents claim the surtax would
only affect Massachusetts’ highest-paid corporate
executives, but in reality, many independent business owners
will also be directly affected.
“The past year has been a historically difficult time for a
lot of ‘Main Street’ business owners in Massachusetts,” said
Nina Weiss, who authored
“The Graduated Income Tax Trap – A Tax on Small Businesses,”
with Greg Sullivan. “This is a time when we should be
prioritizing the resilience of the state’s economy and
getting people back to work, not raising taxes on small
businesses.”
Before the pandemic, Massachusetts saw significant growth
driven by pass-through entities. From 2010 to 2018, the
number of pass-through employers in the Commonwealth grew by
11.3 percent. By 2018, they accounted for 57.1 percent of
Massachusetts’ private sector workforce. Nationally,
pass-through entities represent 95 percent of businesses.
Academic research has confirmed that business activity among
pass-throughs is heavily influenced by tax policy. A 2000
National Bureau of Economic Research paper pointed to the
federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 as a major factor in the
modern renaissance of pass-through entities. A more recent
study of several European countries found that greater tax
progressivity is associated with lower rates of business
formation among the wealthy.
Business groups in Connecticut and New Jersey have
first-hand experience of the effects of higher income tax
rates, which can deter business owners from hiring more
employees or purchasing new equipment. Regarding the 2020
millionaires tax passed in New Jersey, the Tax Foundation
suggests that “when many businesses are struggling to
survive and meet payroll, cutting into the profits of
businesses that are staying afloat is the opposite of an
economic recovery strategy.” In 2019, Connecticut even tried
to target only pass-through businesses for an income tax
hike, stoking significant opposition from multiple trade
groups, including the Connecticut Society of CPAs.
“Promoters of the surtax always point to its impact on some
nebulous ‘millionaire,” said Pioneer Institute Executive
Director Jim Stergios. “The tax will impact many more people
and small businesses, and through them, tens of thousands of
employees. The state economy is at a crossroads, and our
elected leaders will either prioritize job creation and
investments in our future, or at the expense of recovering
small businesses, they will choose to prioritize public
sector employment, which is a relatively small portion of
the Massachusetts workforce.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Massachusetts millionaires tax would ‘adversely impact’ many
small businesses: Report
It would slow the state’s recovery from COVID-19, according
to the report
By Rick Sobey
The proposed millionaires tax in Massachusetts would
“adversely impact” a significant number of small business
owners, ultimately hampering the state’s economic recovery
from the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new study
published by Pioneer Institute.
A proposed state constitutional amendment would add a 4%
surtax to all annual income above $1 million.
If the surtax passes, it would apply to as many as 13,430 of
the state’s pass-through entities — which are often small
businesses structured as S corporations, sole
proprietorships and partnerships.
“Promoters of the surtax always point to its impact on some
nebulous ‘millionaire,’ ” said Pioneer Institute Executive
Director Jim Stergios. “The tax will impact many more people
and small businesses, and through them, tens of thousands of
employees.”
From 2010 to 2018, the number of pass-through employers in
the state grew by 11.3%. By 2018, they accounted for 57.1%
of Massachusetts’ private sector workforce.
“The past year has been a historically difficult time for a
lot of ‘Main Street’ business owners in Massachusetts,” said
Nina Weiss, who wrote the Pioneer report with Greg Sullivan.
“This is a time when we should be prioritizing the
resilience of the state’s economy and getting people back to
work, not raising taxes on small businesses.”
The millionaires tax could also deter future entrepreneurs
from starting businesses here, they write in the report.
Lawmakers this session are likely to advance a ballot
initiative that would propose a constitutional amendment to
impose the surtax.
Proponents of the tax — who call it the “Fair Share
Amendment” — say the measure could bolster education and
transportation funding by $2 billion.
“The Pioneer Institute’s latest missive rehashes an old
argument for why multi-millionaires shouldn’t pay their fair
share of state taxes,” Raise Up Massachusetts, the coalition
behind the amendment, said in a statement. “It’s either
intentionally designed to mislead or the Pioneer Institute
is confused. The Fair Share Amendment wouldn’t increase the
taxes of any businesses, only a few multi-millionaire
business owners.
“The Fair Share Amendment is simple: taxpayers with total
income of more than a million dollars in a single year would
pay an extra 4 percentage points on their second million,
and every million after that,” the coalition added. “Whether
their income is from salaries, stocks, bonds or a
‘pass-through entity’ is irrelevant to the current or
proposed tax rate. Owners of S-corporations and other
pass-through entities would continue to pay income taxes
only on their business’s profits, after subtracting all its
costs.”
Residents could vote on the ballot question in November
2022.
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 23, 2021
A Boston Herald editorial
When the taxes move higher, the taxed get moving
As President Joe Biden makes his move to tax the rich, the
rich are getting ready to move — literally.
According to Bloomberg, Biden will propose almost doubling
the capital gains tax rate for wealthy individuals to 39.6%
to help pay for a spate of social spending, according to
people familiar with the proposal.
For those earning $1 million or more, the new top rate,
coupled with an existing surtax on investment income, means
that federal tax rates for wealthy investors could be as
high as 43.4%.
Hikes such as this have been anticipated by top bracketeers
since Biden won the 2020 election, sparking speculation and
exploration of leaving to more tax-friendly countries.
The number of US citizens looking to renounce nationality
will increase “dramatically” an adviser handling high net
worth individuals told
WealthBriefing.com.
David Lesperance, a Canadian-born adviser, said, “It must be
remembered that since the start of the pandemic, many U.S.
missions (where one must renounce citizenship) have been
closed or operating at a reduced capacity. For example, I
recently received an email from the U.S. Embassy in Berne,
Switzerland, saying they had a waiting list of 400 people
for renunciation appointments … and that is only one of 307
US foreign missions! So, in summary, the rate of
expatriation will continue to accelerate dramatically,” he
said.
According to Americans Overseas, a Europe-based organization
specializing in U.S. tax preparation, a record 6,705
Americans gave up their citizenship in 2020, up by 260% from
2019.
As the number of wealthy individuals thins as more seek to
avoid being in the high tax bull’s-eye, the question then
becomes who to soak next to pay for new social programs?
The middle class should sleep with one eye open.
The New Boston Post
Wednesday, April 21, 2021
Massachusetts Residents Have One Of The Highest Tax Burdens
In The Country
If you live in Massachusetts, odds are you pay a lot more in
state and local taxes than the average American does.
Massachusetts residents ranked sixth in state and local
taxes paid in fiscal year 2018, according to
data released by the Tax Foundation last week. The
average Bay Stater paid $7,006 in state and local taxes.
That also ranked second among New England states. Only
Connecticut ranked ahead ($8,494) — and second in the
country overall.
“As state lawmakers begin the budget process, they should be
cautious that Massachusetts taxpayers are already among the
most generous in New England and in the country,”
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul Craney said in
a press release on the matter. “Even if State House leaders
do not include any new tax hikes in this year’s budget, our
taxpayers are already stretched thin. Sustained increases in
state spending, continued refusals to make state government
more efficient, and no tax relief are all contributing
factors to Massachusetts getting to this point.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Speaker Mariano stays course on costly mega-budgets
By Paul Craney
Since MassFiscal was founded in 2012, we have sounded the
alarm to the state’s rapid level of growth under former
Speaker Robert DeLeo and now it appears Speaker Ron Mariano
will follow in his footsteps. Speaker Mariano was first
sworn into office in 1992, and for nearly 29 years he has
consistently voted to increase the size of state government.
He has never shown any regard for paying down the state’s
debt, lowering the cost of doing business or living in
Massachusetts. Last week, Speaker Mariano’s House Ways and
Means Committee released its first initial state budget
coming in at $47.6 billion. That puts the total at $1.3B, or
a 2.6% increase over last year’s spending according to The
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Speaker Mariano is a career politician who voted for the
controversial 2017 pay raise and he’s seen his
taxpayer-funded paycheck increase nearly 64% during the last
five years. In comparison, the state budget has increased
over 20% during that time. It is clear, the leadership may
change, but their insatiable appetite for spending taxpayer
money never changes.
A big question we anticipate every year during budget season
tends to be “Are there any new taxes?” Luckily, for now, we
can say no. So, how is Speaker Mariano going to pay for his
hefty new budget? He relies on the continued increases in
tax revenue collections (56.6% of total budget resources),
as well as some increased reimbursements from the Biden
administration.
Speaker Mariano’s budget also calls for draining a portion
of the state’s rainy-day fund to pay for the increase in
spending. This was done last year, and is being tried again
this year under the speaker’s plan. If Republican House
Minority Leader Brad Jones ever wanted to object to anything
the speaker does, this should be on the list.
Last year, the state dipped into the rainy-day fund, as no
one knew what the early days of the pandemic would bring.
However, the state collected more tax money than what they
anticipated and now the Biden administration is showering
Massachusetts with billions of dollars.
Speaker Mariano and his leadership team should never
consider continuing the practice of increasing state
spending and dipping into the state’s depleted rainy-day
fund while tax collections are coming in ahead, but they do
it because no one objects. There’s hardly any debate, let
alone transparency in the budget process.
The speaker’s budget doles out cash with some skeptical
practices like additional spending on reimbursing school
districts to help them “stabilize” for a significant
decrease in enrollment. Yes, that’s right, fewer students to
teach but more money to teach them. For the Massachusetts
Teachers’ Union and their sympathetic lawmakers, this is
economics.
Overall, if you are used to worse budgets and are thinking
“it could be worse,” well, we still have time for that. The
House is expected to debate the budget soon. If history
repeats itself, it will mean a whole lot of closed-door
horse trading and very little actual debate in the public
eye. Followed with a rubber-stamped vote of approval by the
Democratic majority and no dissent by Republican Minority
Leader Jones and his Republican leadership team. Let’s hope
I am wrong, and Jones finds a newfound courage that was
missing under the previous speaker.
— Paul Diego Craney is the
spokesperson of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Massachusetts quasi-state agencies clock sky-high pay
Herald has just posted 16 of the quasi wages
By Joe Dwinell
Quasi-state agencies — home to pay that tops $700,000 — are
viewed as “shrouded in secrecy” with many still not sharing
their payrolls with the comptroller’s office.
The Herald has just posted 16 of the quasi wages from the
likes of Massport and the Convention Center Authority to
pension and housing boards. But at least a dozen more remain
in the dark.
“The Legislature should come down very hard and require some
level of transparency,” said Greg Sullivan of the Pioneer
Institute, a former state inspector general. “These agencies
were created for a public purpose, but they consider
themselves to be above the rest of the state.”
The top quasi-state is Massport, home to Logan International
Airport and Boston’s massive port operation. Top pay there
goes to the $403,581 director of aviation. But 644 earned
$100,000 or more last year, payroll records show.
Massport has struggled, as have most airports, during the
pandemic with layoffs and furloughs, as the Herald reported
this past fall. But the 2020 payroll, posted to
bostonherald.com, shows 23 top managers earning $200,000 or
more.
The state’s Pension Reserves Investment Management Board, or
MassPRIM, manages the pension benefits for retired state
employees. Those jobs come with lofty pay, payroll records
show.
The top earner is the executive director, at $789,033, with
three other top executives pulling down more than $400,000
per year each, records show.
The Convention Center, MCCA, in the Seaport pays the
executive director $170,000.
The Mass Educational Financing Authority, MEFA, pays the
chief operating and financial officer $341,909, records
show. Anyone looking to finance a college loan will
recognize that agency.
The state Comptroller’s office keeps a close eye on the
salaries paid out to these quasi-state agencies, but they
can handle more.
“The Office of the Comptroller provides any
quasi-governmental agency with access to our transparency
records portal, CTHRU, to easily publish spending and
payroll data,” a spokesman said.
He added: “We look forward to working with any
quasi-governmental agencies that would choose to take
advantage of CTHRU in the interest of transparency.”
Paul Diego Craney, spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance, said transparency should be the norm, especially
as Gov. Charlie Baker and the state Legislature work to pull
the state out of the pandemic.
“These agencies need to show the public how they can be
transparent. If not,” he said, “they are ripe for abuse due
to a lack of oversight.”
Pioneer’s Sullivan said he was on a task force set up by
former Gov. Deval Patrick to look into quasi-state agencies.
He was a state inspector general then, but all his
recommendations went to the Legislature — where they have
gathered dust.
“These agencies are shrouded in secrecy,” he added, “and act
as if they are a fourth branch of government.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Volume 46 - Report No. 16
April 12-16, 2021
By Bob Katzen
PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE SEAT BELT LAW (S-1591) - Allows
police officers to issue tickets for seat belt violations
even if the driver is not first stopped for another
violation as required under current law. Other provisions
prevent officers from searching the vehicle or occupants
solely because of the seat belt violation and prohibit a
seat belt violation from resulting in a surcharge on motor
vehicle insurance premiums. The fine for drivers and
passengers over the age of 16 who violate the law would be
increased from $25 to $50. The current additional $25 fine
on the driver for each passenger between the ages of 12 and
16 who is not wearing a seatbelt would also rise to $50.
“Seat belts save lives,” said Sen. Paul Feeney (D-Foxborough),
the sponsor of the bill. “In fact they saved the life of me
and my wife years ago. The data shows that Massachusetts
lags the nation in usage, yet state law currently requires
that everyone buckle up for a reason. This simple fix will
add an enforcement mechanism to a law that already exists.
The evidence is clear, the likelihood of severe injuries and
fatalities drop significantly when people buckle up. We
should pass this law to save lives and include a data
collection provision to ensure that it is applied evenly and
without bias.”
“The Rite of Spring has now arrived with another mandatory
seat belt law bill,” said Chip Ford, executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, who got
his start in political activism leading the ballot campaign
to repeal the non-primary seat belt law in 1986. “Like a
persistent weed it sprouts anew each spring and needs to be
eradicated,” Ford added. “Another law was immediately
proposed in 1987 and every spring thereafter until it was
again imposed in 1994, again with the promise it would never
become a primary offense. Yet that too has tenaciously
bloomed year after year. If that promise is broken, the next
step — always the goal of the insurance industry lobby —
will be imposition of the insurance surcharge. Experience
has painfully taught us the value of a legislative promise.”
State House News Service
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
State Gun Makers Accused of “Exporting Bloodshed” to the
Nation
Calls Build for Ban on Assault Weapon Manufacturing
By Chris Lisinski
When James Eagan Holmes shot and killed 12 people in an
Aurora, Colorado movie theater in 2012, one of the weapons
he used was an AR-15-style rifle manufactured in
Massachusetts.
The Bay State has banned civilians from purchasing or owning
assault weapons and high-capacity magazines for decades, but
companies like Smith & Wesson, headquartered in Springfield,
can still build them here and sell them elsewhere.
Backed by parents who lost children to mass shootings and
the Stop Handgun Violence organization, a group of
Democratic lawmakers launched an effort Tuesday to change
that dynamic, filing legislation that would extend the
existing assault weapon ban to cover their manufacture for
civilian use as well.
The proposal drew immediate criticism from gun ownership
advocates, who described it as misguided and insufficient to
address underlying causes of violence.
Sandy Phillips, whose daughter, Jessica Redfield Ghawi, was
killed in the Aurora shooting, said Tuesday that gun
violence victims and their families have been unable to
convince manufacturers to stop producing military-style
weapons.
"These weapons are made in your state, but they can't be
sold in your state, so in effect, Massachusetts is exporting
bloodshed to the rest of the country," Phillips said at a
virtual press conference alongside Massachusetts lawmakers.
"There are no reasons other than the pleas of Americans for
them to do anything to stop the carnage. Legislation is the
only way."
The bill (HD 4192 / SD 2588) filed Tuesday would prohibit
Massachusetts companies such as Smith & Wesson from
manufacturing assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
covered under the state's existing ban on their purchase and
possession. Anything manufactured to be sold to law
enforcement, the military or foreign governments would be
exempt from the newly proposed ban, and handguns -- which
are used in a vast majority of gun violence -- would not be
affected.
Massachusetts first implemented a state ban on assault
weapons in 1998, when a similar federal law was already in
place. In 2004, Republican Gov. Mitt Romney signed a
permanent ban into law shortly before the federal policy
expired.
Supporters described the ability of Massachusetts companies
to manufacture weapons they are banned from selling in the
state as a "loophole" in the current law. Lawmakers who
filed the new bill said banning the manufacture of most
assault weapons would help reduce the toll of gun violence,
particularly mass shootings, elsewhere in America.
"If we no longer produce and manufacture military-style
assault weapons here in Massachusetts and we impact the
ability for private citizens to access these weapons, we
know there will be fewer mass shootings," said Rep. Marjorie
Decker, a Cambridge Democrat and one of the bill's authors.
"We know less people will die."
Decker co-authored the bill alongside Rep. Frank Moran of
Lawrence, Sen. Cynthia Creem of Newton, and Rep. Bud
Williams of Springfield, whose district includes Smith &
Wesson's headquarters and a manufacturing facility.
Williams forecast that he will face a wave of criticism from
gun owners and groups such as the National Rifle Association
for backing the proposal. He described the bill as a
"common-sense approach."
"We have a responsibility when we see something that's not
right, that's incorrect, we need to fix it," Williams said.
"They're going to come charging. Gun rights advocates are
going to make that conversation about my right to bear arms
and all that. That's far from the truth. These assault
weapons are meant, plain and simple, for war."
Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action
League, said his group opposes the latest proposal and the
state's existing ban on the purchase of assault weapons.
"We oppose the ban itself because it's not based on anything
that's actually safety-related," Wallace said in an
interview on Tuesday. "It's more political agenda and what I
call social bigotry against gun owners by people who don't
understand what's going on."
Wallace said he believes the Legislature should address the
role of mental health in gun violence and suicides -- which
in 2017 accounted for 60 percent of all gun deaths
nationwide, according to the Pew Research Center.
He pointed to the 2018 debate on a "red flag" risk
protection gun bill that ultimately passed and earned Gov.
Charlie Baker's signature, recounting an unsuccessful push
by some Republican lawmakers to focus the debate on mental
health.
"The people who have been doing this are not serious about
addressing the actual problem," Wallace said. "All they want
to do is pass something to ban a thing, because a thing is
easy, and the human element is difficult."
Smith & Wesson, which did not respond to an immediate
request for comment, is one of the top firearm manufacturers
nationwide. In the most recent financial quarter, the
company reported selling more than 600,000 guns and
accessories, more than double its sales a year ago, WBUR
reported last week.
The lawmakers and their backers said Tuesday that it is
unclear exactly how many assault weapons are produced in
Massachusetts, though several used in mass shootings --
including Aurora, the 2018 shooting in Parkland, Florida,
and the 2015 shooting in San Bernardino, California -- were
built in Massachusetts.
John Rosenthal, a co-founder of Stop Handgun Violence, said
there are at least 24 known gun manufacturers in
Massachusetts, including Smith & Wesson, Savage and
Springfield Armory. In 2019, he said, Massachusetts
companies produced more guns than any other state in the
nation.
"If a gun manufacturer in Massachusetts doesn't make
military-style weapons, they've got nothing to worry about,"
Rosenthal said about the proposed manufacturing ban.
It's also unclear what impact the manufacturing ban would
have on the state's economy and jobs outlook, in large part
because the production breakdown between assault weapons and
other permissible weapons and devices is not widely known.
Asked about the chances that Smith & Wesson or another
company could leave Massachusetts in response to the bill,
Manuel Oliver, whose son, Joaquin, died in the Parkland
shooting, replied that the focus should be on saving lives.
"It's about saving lives and protecting people," Oliver
said. "I feel that we're more concerned about the final
destiny of the manufacturer and not the final destiny of our
kids and civilians in general."
Six other states have a ban on assault weapons similar to
that in place in Massachusetts, and three of them -- New
Jersey, New York and California -- also ban their
manufacture, supporters say. During the 2018 Democratic
gubernatorial primary campaign, eventual Democratic nominee
Jay Gonzalez called for Springfield-based Smith & Wesson to
halt the manufacture of assault weapons.
The bill could emerge as the center of the first major gun
control debate under House Speaker Ronald Mariano, who rose
to the top position following former Speaker Robert DeLeo's
departure in December.
Decker noted that Mariano, as majority leader, played an
important role in generating support for previous gun
control legislation, and he recently called on Congress to
follow the lead of Massachusetts and pass more restrictive
national gun laws.
"Speaker DeLeo, in spite of all the pressure to act quickly
to support it or to not support it, was really committed to
due diligence with members and advocates," Decker said.
"That has been my experience with Speaker Mariano, that he
will be committed to due diligence."
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, April 21, 2021
A Boston Herald editorial
Just who are you calling snobs?
The next time you’re scratching a lottery ticket, do raise
your pinkie — we’ve got a reputation to uphold.
According to the career site Zippia,
Massachusetts is the snobbiest state in America.
To which we say, “Piffle!” We have snobs in the Bay State,
but that doesn’t mean the state collectively is snobbish.
Zippia ranked each state in four areas:
• Percent of population with a bachelor’s degree (42.9)
• Percent of degree earners with a degree in arts and
humanities (24%)
• Number of Ivy League colleges
• Gallons of wine consumed yearly
We do have a some of the country’s most prestigious colleges
and universities — they have us there. As they put it,
snob-wise, “How do you tell someone went to Harvard? You
don’t, but trust me, they’ll tell you.”
True.
However, when it comes to the 24% with a degree in the arts
or humanities, we’re not sure snobbishness is a factor. You
may have a degree in literature or comparative religion —
but so does the barista next to you slinging matcha lattes.
Zippia decided that wine was a “smug beverage,” and we also
take issue with this. For one, that fails to consider the
Japanese whiskey aficionados and enthusiasts of artisanal
bitters — an elite bunch if ever there was one.
And what kind of wine? An insouciant Meursault sipped on the
porch of a Marblehead manse? Or Richard’s Wild Irish Rose
decanted into a Pepsi bottle for stealth beach drinking?
What we do have, as Zippia’s data underscores, is a large
number of elites — those with lofty degrees from A-list
colleges and well-paying careers at universities or in
politics who consider themselves more than qualified to
decide how the non-elite should live.
No wonder we drink so much wine.
The Attleboro Sun Chronicle
Monday, April 19, 2021
The story behind 2½
by Bill Gouveia
The situation in Plainville regarding cuts in services and
the recent decision by voters to not increase taxes to fund
those services is a great illustration of the real power and
effects of a law many people today don’t even remember and
even fewer understand — Proposition 2½.
That particular tax-cutting law was passed in the early
1980s when property taxes in local communities throughout
Massachusetts were soaring out of control. Prior to
Proposition 2½, the mayor/city council or the town meeting
in a community would vote a budget each year. The only limit
to what they could spend was whatever the legislative branch
would approve. If town meeting voted through a large tax
increase to fund projects or departments, then it was done.
Even though it was the people themselves through town
meeting that were voting these increases, it was declared
something had to be done to protect them against themselves.
So, led by a group called Citizens for Limited Taxation, a
proposal was put on the ballot limiting the total amount a
town could raise by taxation (called the tax levy) by 2½
percent each year, plus any new construction or growth the
previous year.
Some believe the 2½ percent figure was the result of
detailed study and research. But it was just a number those
petitioners felt was proper. Nowhere in their proposal was
there a mechanism for adjusting the percentage over time in
response to inflationary factors.
Today, folks in Massachusetts seem to think the 2½ percent
number was in the original state constitution, rather than
simply an arbitrary choice.
The question passed, and the legislature added to it an
“override provision” which allowed communities to vote
exemptions to the limit for certain things. Hence was the
concept of “overrides” born, and that has hung over this
local area like a shroud of doom for 40 years.
Any attempt to raise the tax levy limit by more than 2½
percent is viewed as an attack on the natural order of the
universe. Overrides are not seen as inevitable adjustments,
but rather a means of covering up the allegedly gross
excesses of communities.
The truth is that 2½ percent does not, in most years, cover
the basic increase in yearly costs for cities and towns. So,
communities resorted to raising revenue from other sources,
such as new and increased fees, and shifting the burden to
user fees and similar mechanisms.
And overrides. Which in the minds of most people translates
into failure. They might as well have designated them
“Disgrace Taxes.” In this state, an override attempt is
almost universally seen as an admission of mismanagement or
malfeasance, rather than a necessary correction.
Proposition 2½ did not target spendthrift politicians who
were fleecing the local property taxpayers. The law was
aimed squarely at the citizens and taxpayers themselves.
Their power to decide their own budgets at the local
legislative level was removed. It was a one-size-fits-all
solution to 351 separate and unique problems. But it did
slow the growth of property taxes.
So now towns like Plainville too often concentrate on
staying within artificial limits rather than addressing real
needs.
And now you know why overrides aren’t called “growth
adjustments.”
— Bill Gouveia is columnist
and longtime local official in Norton.
State House News Service
Friday, April 23, 2021
Weekly Roundup - The Old Normal
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Matt Murphy
A quiet settled over Beacon Hill and the State House this
week. And for a change, it was supposed to be that way.
The rhythms of the State House, and the bars, restaurants
and lunch counters that cater to the capitol crowd, have
been off beat for more than a year. The building itself is
still closed to the public.
But as another Patriots' Day came and went without marathon
runners to cheer up Heartbreak Hill and to cheer to the
Boylston Street finish line, at least the school-vacation
lull felt familiar.
The House on Thursday literally gaveled into session,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance and adjourned, the branch's
leaders busy preparing, as they would have been prior to the
pandemic, for their annual budget debate.
More than 1,150 amendments have been proposed to the $47.6
billion spending plan that will hit the floor Monday, and
aside from encouraging remote participation, House Speaker
Ron Mariano's office is preparing for a typical multi-day
affair.
With the Legislature abiding by the school calendar, Gov.
Charlie Baker hit the road toward the end of the week after
welcoming the national champion UMass Amherst men's hockey
team to the State House on Tuesday for an outdoor
celebration of their first title.
There would be more celebrating in some corners later in the
day, but it could have easily gone in a different direction.
A jury in Minnesota delivered a verdict of guilty on all
charges against former Minneapolis police officer Derek
Chauvin in the murder of George Floyd. With people on edge
over the case from coast to coast, Baker called on the
National Guard to be ready should unrest follow. But not one
city or town wound up asking for their help.
As Boston Mayor Kim Janey addressed the historic verdict
that night, she also found herself becoming a target for her
handling of a police scandal involving the former head of
the police union, Patrick Rose. Rose had climbed the union
ranks during his career despite being investigated for the
alleged sexual abuse of a child.
Hours before Chauvin's fate was decided, Janey released 13
pages of Rose's redacted internal affairs file concerning
his case. While it was a step further than the previous
administration was willing to go, some at City Hall,
including councilor and mayoral candidate Andrea Campbell,
said Janey did not go far enough and should hand the
investigation over to the U.S. Attorney.
Policing promises to be a major issue in the Boston mayoral
race in the months to come, just as climate change figures
to factor heavily into next year's gubernatorial race.
Baker spent Earth Day burning fuel to the western part of
the state where he visited MGM Springfield to recognize the
casino's green building certificate, and then it was on to
Pittsfield to tour one of the Berkshire Regional
Collaborative vaccination sites.
Last weekend, Massachusetts passed the milestone of 2
million residents fully vaccinated, and unlike some other
states that have begun to show signs of hitting a wall,
Baker said demand for shots continues to greatly outpace
supply.
The imbalance is so much that Baker said he has asked the
Biden administration and will talk with the Massachusetts
congressional delegation next week about convincing the
federal government to begin diverting vaccine supply away
from states that can't use their full allotment to states
like Massachusetts.
Baker said a recent Centers for Disease Control analysis
showed Massachusetts to have the lowest rate of vaccine
hesitancy in the country, and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito
demonstrated she is not one of those people. Not that there
was any doubt.
The Shrewsbury Republican on Friday became one of the more
than 1.24 million people who have received the first of a
two-dose Pfizer or Moderna vaccine when she got her shot in
Worcester. Massachusetts is one of eight states with at
least 60 percent of its adult population single dosed, and
has begun to see a tapering of cases and, perhaps more
importantly, hospitalizations.
White House senior advisor Andy Slavitt called attention on
Friday to the list, which includes every New England state
except Rhode Island, along with New Jersey, New Mexico and
Hawaii.
"All of them have turned the corner on the number of cases &
hospitalizations. Well done. Let's all get there," Slavitt
tweeted.
Incidentally, it was Rhode Island that was also getting
picked on a day earlier by the conservative Massachusetts
Fiscal Alliance as part of the group's efforts to urge Baker
to lift all remaining COVID-19 restrictions on businesses,
such as capacity limits.
New Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee had just announced that,
like some other states in the region, the Ocean State would
gradually remove all capacity limits on businesses by
Memorial Day and eliminate the outdoor mask mandate.
"Even Rhode Island gets it. Their state is just a beach with
two US Senators," said Mass Fiscal spokesman Paul Craney.
Baker hinted that he would have more to say next week about
the next steps in the state's reopening strategy, but said
he wanted to be careful that whatever he orders next doesn't
"create a bounce in the wrong direction."
"I expect we'll have some stuff to say before the end of
April, but at this point in time ... People need to continue
to follow the rules and the guidance," Baker said.
By his own admission, Baker said he and his COVID-19 team
usually wait about two or three weeks after taking a step
forward with reopening to see what the impact might be
before considering the next move. The last opening up of the
economy and relaxation of gathering limits came in March
(large venues opened March 22) in the midst of what some
worried might be a new surge.
The seven-day average of daily new cases had climbed to over
2,000 on April 1, and some legislative Democrats said at the
time that Baker had made a huge mistake in pushing forward.
But hospitalizations and new cases have been brought under
control according to some metrics. Daily new cases are back
around 1,000, hospitalizations have flattened, confirmed
daily deaths from COVID-19 are way down and tens of
thousands of people are getting vaccinated every day.
"You have to wait and see," Baker teased.
As for new rules the governor was ready to lay out, Baker
commemorated Earth Day by signing an executive order
requiring, among other things, that all state fleets buy
zero-emission vehicles beginning next year and pledging to
double the number of electric vehicle charging stations at
state facilities by 2030.
The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education also
approved a graduation rule change that will allow the
current crop of high school juniors to graduate in 2022
without passing the MCAS exam if they show core competency
in English and math by completing a relevant course instead.
The change didn't go as far as some may have wanted. The
Massachusetts Teachers Association and others have been
clamoring for the MCAS to be canceled altogether this year.
But some on the board hope it ends the debate.
"I think we're as far as we need to go, and I hope this is
the end of the modifications to MCAS," said Matt Hills, a
member of the education board.
It may be the end for now, but a Senate committee focused on
how Massachusetts will emerge from this pandemic heard this
week from education advocates at all levels of the system
that Beacon Hill may have a short and closing window to
reform schooling from pre-school to post-graduate.
The committee led by Sen. Adam Hinds was told it will
require quick and decisive action in the next few years to
take advantage of opportunities created by COVID-19, and
should include major new investments in school buildings and
teaching, changed funding models for child care, and
expanded online learning.
More immediately, the Boston City Council was told by city
election officials they should act now to change the state
of the city's preliminary election in September and bump it
up a week earlier to ensure enough time to process mail-in
ballots, should the Legislature permanently adopt voting by
mail this year.
The last change to the election process the City Council
adopted - to cancel a special election - proved to be
unnecessary because Labor Secretary Marty Walsh ended up
resigning after March 5, taking the special election off the
table.
This could also wind up being for naught if the Legislature
doesn't take up an election reform bill in the next few
months, but it's unclear if the council wants to take that
chance.
STORY OF THE WEEK: The Chauvin verdict delivered
accountability for one officer, police reformers said, but
the true test of George Floyd's legacy will be in the
success of laws like the one signed in Massachusetts in
January.
State House News Service
Friday, April 23, 2021
Advances - Week of April 25
Most of the Beacon Hill action next week will take place in
the House... and from wherever each representative dials in.
Though the House budget debate is returning to its usual
slot on the calendar this April, that could be one of the
only normal parts of the process as the House considers the
Ways and Means Committee's $47.65 billion budget for fiscal
year 2022, which starts July 1.
The House will gavel in at 10 a.m. Monday and expects to
begin roll call votes at 11 a.m. Representatives have been
told to plan for budget sessions starting at 10 a.m. on
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and to hold Thursday and
Friday open for potential sessions. Though some lawmakers
will be present in the House Chamber, Speaker Ron Mariano's
office urged reps to participate remotely because of the
persistently high number of COVID-19 cases in Massachusetts.
The private amendment haggling sessions that used to take
place in the Members Lounge will take place remotely again
this year. Debate will begin with any amendments that would
alter the budget's revenue base before the Ways and Means
Committee begins the process of consolidating amendments
into bundles to more efficiently dispense with the
proposals.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation analyzed the 1,157
amendments that representatives suggested for the Ways and
Means Committee's spending plan. Of those amendments, 945
have a known fiscal impact. If the House were to adopt every
one of those amendments, the branch would add $1.04 billion
in additional spending during the floor debate, MTF said.
But if history is any indication, next week's floor debate
will probably add somewhere in the range of $60 million to
$80 million in additional spending. Over the last six
budgets, the House debate has added an average of $68
million to the budget -- from a high of $94.2 million in the
fiscal 2016 budget to a low of $27.1 million during last
year's pandemic-influenced fiscal 2021 spending plan,
according to MTF.
Just more than $386 million of the additional spending is
proposed as earmarks. The most common category for earmark
amendments, MTF said, is "tourism/economic development," an
area that Mariano and Ways and Means Chairman Aaron
Michlewitz highlighted as a priority in the fiscal 2022
budget.
"We believe that regional tourism is going to be very
important over the next year and we want to make sure that
we are marketing on a regional basis to help compete with
some of the other major hubs on the East Coast or the
eastern seaboard," Michlewitz said last week. "We know that
maybe overseas travel is not going to be as important as it
had been in the past and that we want to make sure that we
are bringing people back as we start to reopen."
-- BACK TO CLASSROOMS: Middle schoolers in most
Massachusetts districts are due to return to full-time
in-person learning by next Wednesday under a deadline set by
Elementary and Secondary Education Commissioner Jeff Riley.
Many districts had already been working toward phasing out
remote learning when Riley set the deadlines of April 5 and
April 28 for bringing back grades K-5 and 6-8 respectively.
Riley said Tuesday that 218 middle schools had already
returned to fully in-person learning.
As the school year winds down, high schoolers could soon get
word on when they, too, have to be back in the classroom,
unless their parents or guardians choose to stick with
remote learning for the rest of the year. "I anticipate that
high school students will be expected to be in-person at
some point next month, but we are in the process of
finalizing those details," Riley told the state education
board on Tuesday. He's also previously said that he expects
to reach the decision on high schools sometime in April --
which ends after next week -- and that school districts will
have at least two weeks' notice for bringing back their
upper grades.
In Boston, the state's largest school district and one of
the relatively few to be granted a waiver adjusting their
in-person timelines, Mayor Kim Janey said that kindergarten
through eighth graders who have opted in will be learning in
person five days a week starting Monday when they return
from April vacation.
-- END OF SOME RESTRICTIONS?: Gov. Baker hinted Thursday
that he'll have some kind of an announcement related to
personal and economic COVID-19 restrictions to make next
week. Business groups like the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts have been clamoring for the governor to loosen
restrictions and Baker could use his speech to the Metro
South Chamber of Commerce next Friday to deliver the news.
The governors in neighboring New Hampshire, Connecticut and
Rhode Island have all made announcements about the end of
certain COVID-19 mitigation strategies -- like the
requirement to wear a mask when outdoors -- but Baker said
he remains focused on the state's vaccine rollout. "I expect
we'll have some stuff to say before the end of April, but at
this point in time ... people need to continue to follow the
rules and the guidance," he said.
New Hampshire last week allowed its public mask mandate to
expire, Connecticut announced plans to phase out all
business restrictions by May 19 and Rhode Island Gov. Daniel
McKee said Thursday he will incrementally increase capacity
limits for all businesses in the Ocean State until they are
eliminated by Memorial Day weekend.
Baker has said he usually likes to wait two to three weeks
before taking another step forward in his reopening
strategy. Massachusetts entered the fourth phase of the
Baker administration's economic reopening plan on March 22,
allowing entertainment venues to reopen and pushing up the
gathering limits for public settings to 100 people indoors
and 150 people outdoors.
-- CENSUS DATA RELEASE: The number of Congressional seats
that each state will have for the next decade will become
clear next week when the U.S. Census Bureau releases the
apportionment data that the federal government uses to
divide the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
While the numbers -- expected to be released sometime
between Monday and Friday, on a later timeline than most
Census cycles because of the pandemic's impacts on
operations -- will include population totals showing how
many people live in each state, they will not indicate
demographics or where in a state people live.
It's those more granular details, set for release by the end
of September, that will be used to draw Congressional and
state legislative maps, a process that here in Massachusetts
will be helmed by Redistricting Committee Chairs Senate
President Pro Tempore William Brownsberger and Assistant
House Majority Leader Michael Moran.
Under normal circumstances, according to a report from the
Brennan Center for Justice, states would have received their
block-level data by the end of March. The delay will create
a tighter timeline for new maps to be completed ahead of the
2022 Congressional and state legislative elections.
"Because Massachusetts has a full-time legislature, the
state should be able to complete redistricting before
candidate filing deadlines," the Brennan Center report says.
"Massachusetts's legislature has no redistricting-specific
deadlines for passing a congressional plan, but timing
should not be a problem given the state's late primary."
After losing one seat following the 2010 Census,
Massachusetts this cycle is expected to retain its nine
House seats, all of which are currently held by Democrats.
Monday, April 26, 2021
HOUSE BUDGET DELIBERATIONS: House meets in a full
formal session to start deliberating the House Ways and
Means fiscal 2022 budget proposal and the 1,157 amendments
representatives filed. Lawmakers will start with amendments
dealing with the amount of revenue the state can expect to
bring in next year and the process will most likely play out
across a few days. House Democrats proposed spending $47.65
billion and avoided service cuts or tax hikes on
individuals. (Monday, 10 a.m., House Chamber and virtually |
Livestream |
Amendments)
REVENUE COMMITTEE HEARING: Joint Committee on Revenue
holds a virtual hearing to consider four Constitutional
amendments from Rep. O'Day (H 86) that would impose a tax on
individuals with incomes in excess of $1 million; Rep.
Schmid (H 91) giving the Legislature power to value
agricultural or horticultural lands for taxation purposes;
and two from Sen. Tarr requiring a two-thirds vote in each
legislative branch to utilize the state's stabilization
funds and another capping state income taxes. (Monday, 2
p.m.,
Details)
State House News Service
Thursday, April 22, 2021
Further Reopening Not Top-of-Mind for Baker
Guv 'Going to Continue to Press' for More Vaccine Doses
By Matt Murphy
With states around Massachusetts beginning to loosen some of
their personal and economic COVID-19 restrictions, Gov.
Charlie Baker said Thursday that the state's vaccination
program remains his top priority, though he'll likely have
more to say about reopening by the end of the month.
New Hampshire last week dropped its public mask mandate,
Connecticut announced plans to phase out all business
restrictions by May 19 and new Rhode Island Gov. Daniel
McKee said Thursday he would incrementally increase capacity
limits for all businesses in the Ocean State until they are
eliminated by Memorial Day weekend.
The last time the rules changes in Massachusetts was a month
ago when large venues like Fenway Park were permitted to
open at 12 percent capacity, and most businesses are still
restricted to 50 percent capacity and no more than 500
people. Baker said he usually likes to wait two to three
weeks before taking the next step forward, and has been
monitoring the health data to make sure whatever comes next
"doesn't create a bounce in the wrong direction."
Though daily case and test counts remain higher than many
other states, Baker said the rate of hospitalization in
Massachusetts is lower than any state on the eastern
seaboard to Florida and across the Midwest to Minnesota.
"I expect we'll have some stuff to say before the end of
April, but at this point in time, I'm with the mayor. People
need to continue to follow the rules and the guidance,"
Baker responded when asked about reopening after a tour of a
Berkshire regional vaccinate site with Pittsfield Mayor
Linda Tyer.
Jon Hurst, president of Retailers Association of
Massachusetts, recently argued that with Massachusetts among
the national leaders in vaccinations the state should roll
back all remaining business restrictions by Memorial Day.
Baker said Massachusetts received 348,000 first and second
doses of vaccine this week, which he described as "basically
flat" from last week, and he said he has begun to push the
Biden administration to reallocate federal vaccine supply to
Massachusetts from states that are having trouble using
their full allotment.
"If you have folks who aren't taking down the allocation
that's being made available to them, we here in
Massachusetts would love to have that because we have people
who want to get vaccinated," Baker said.
The governor said the federal government hasn't figured out
how to react to vaccine supply outpacing demand in some
parts of the country, but Baker said he planned to speak
with the Congressional delegation next week about the issue.
"We're going to continue to press on it," Baker said.
Citing CDC data, Baker said Massachusetts has the lowest
rate of vaccine hesitancy in the county, with fewer than 10
percent of residents in all counties in Massachusetts
expressing reluctance to get vaccinated.
"People in Massachusetts are eager to get vaccinated," Baker
said.
The governor, however, said there are still communities
where outreach needs to occur, including in hard-hit
communities of color that the state has targeted with a $5
million public awareness campaign launched in February and a
$30 million vaccine equity initiative that includes
door-to-door canvassing.
The state plans this week to launch a new round of
multilingual TV ads "to remind people that the vaccine saves
lives and it is the best way to protect yourself, your loved
ones, your co-workers and your neighbors," Baker said.
The governor was at the Berkshire Regional Collaborative
vaccination site in Pittsfield where Tyer said they've
vaccinated 65,000 people. The collaborative has the capacity
to administer 2,000 shots a day at each of its three
locations in Pittsfield, Great Barrington and North Adams,
but lacks the supply to meet that potential, the mayor said.
"Even if we don't see much change in the federal supply we
expect that everybody who wants a vaccine will get one,
certainly by the end of June," Baker said. "My hope and my
anticipation is that we see some improvements in supply and
that particular date can move up by a few weeks."
Baker said he's also hoping there will be more clarity on
the future use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after
Friday, when the Food and Drug Administration's Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices meets to discuss the
findings of its review of the six rare instances of blood
clots detected in Johnson & Johnson vaccine recipients.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, April 25, 2021
Massachusetts in coronavirus ‘Groundhog Day’ with Charlie
Baker
By Howie Carr
Too bad the movie title “Groundhog Day” is already taken,
because it would be the perfect description of a film about
Gov. Charlie Baker’s endless reruns of self-pitying,
sanctimonious, delusional, hysterical, disingenuous press
conferences.
For my radio show, I’ve collected hundreds of sound cuts
from the bumbling beta male who Joe Biden calls Charlie
Parker, or the stiff who Sen. Ed Markey calls Charlie Bacon.
Parker says the same thing, over and over and over again.
But nothing ever changes. The goal posts keep shifting.
Let’s go to the audiotape:
“Collectively, we have flattened the curve and avoided the
spike in cases.”
That was May 18, 2020.
“People have worked really hard and given up a tremendous
amount over the course of the past eight or ten weeks to
bend the trend on this and we succeeded. … We can start
talking about a gradual, careful, data-driven phased
reopening.”
That was May 23, 2020.
“If people would just wear these things (masks) religiously
for 30 days we could kill the virus. Religiously wear them
for 30 days.”
That was Nov. 3, 2020.
“A few more months of masks … the fact that we are in some
respects on the last lap should make doing some of these
difficult things that we’ve been doing for months a little
easier to put up with.”
That was Dec. 15, 2020.
He sounds like LBJ babbling about Vietnam. Yet Charlie Baker
never gets called out on any of this. His handling of this
has been a disaster at every turn, yet he brags about his
managerial prowess, and the amen chorus that is the Boston
media laps it up with a spoon.
On Sept. 15, 2020, he proclaimed, “There’s a certain amount
of vigilance and repetition that is required to make our
efforts ultimately successful … while they may seem annoying
and pedantic at times, um, they’re effective.”
So effective, in fact, that Maskachusetts continues to have
the third highest death rate in the nation. Quite effective
indeed.
The nursing-home death rate is way up there too, although
it’s hard to tell exactly how high now that the Bacon
administration recently “adjusted” the number of nursing
home fatalities — from 9,018 to 5,502 overnight.
Charlie Parker tracks the virus like an obsessed fictional
character after his arch-nemesis — think Ahab and the white
whale, or Sherlock Holmes with Professor Moriarty. Of
course, given his utter ineptitude, Charlie comes across
more like Inspector Clouseau.
On June 15, 2020, he informed us “the virus hasn’t left
town.” Does he have a GPS on it?
On Aug. 11, 2020, he informed us that “the virus doesn’t
care about boundaries.” Can it be charged with interstate
flight then?
Like a vampire, it jumps “from person to person to live”
(July 24). It “thrives” at indoor gatherings (Nov. 18). The
virus “is always there somewhere … truly a secret and silent
spread” (Dec. 8).
Charlie has spent his life at the public trough, so he’s
never ever seen anything like this before.
You know why? Because unlike state employees, the virus
works full-time.
That’s what he has told us again and again. On June 23, he
informed us that COVID-19 would not be taking a summer
vacation. He repeated it on July 2, July 7 and July 27 —
COVID-19 had no plans for any time off.
Boy, that COVID-19 must be grabbing more overtime than those
staties from F Troop who lugged Charlie’s son off the Jet
Blue flight at Logan.
On Sept. 9, 2020, Charlie delivered at least his fifth
update on COVID-19’s vacation status.
“As we’ve said, COVID didn’t take the summer off and we
don’t expect it to take off the fall, either. We’ll still be
fighting until there’s a treatment or a vaccine.”
Now, of course, the vaccine won’t be nearly enough. On
Thursday, Charlie Parker changed the rules yet again and
said his subjects will all be needing a booster because,
well, the show must go on.
Just as we can’t even begin to think about dismantling the
police state apparatus — it all depends on the variants, or
is it mutants, or is it double mutant-variants?
On April 12, 2021, he said: “Well we follow the data pretty
closely and as you all know the data tends to be a little
unpredictable.”
Yeah, especially when you’re just making it all up, like the
Department of Public Health with the nursing-home numbers,
the way they did with the 65,000 falsified criminal drug-lab
tests.
The hacks’ ham-handed response to a seasonal virus has now
been dragging on so long that Bacon is beginning to repeat
the same BS lectures he was peddling a year ago.
It’s getting warmer, right? People — excuse me, “folks” —
just want to relax and enjoy themselves, especially since
the only real danger they face is from Charlie’s senseless
lockdowns and Karen vigilantes.
So Charlie keeps shouting out his diktats — fun is still
verboten in Maskachusetts, comrades! You must remain
miserable and afraid — or else!
“Don’t let a few nice days step on that!”
That was May 25, 2020.
“We do need to be vigilant and keep our guard up with regard
to COVID generally as the weather gets nicer.”
That was March 17, 2021.
On Feb. 18, 2021, Bacon said his hair was on fire. Surely,
given his mendacity over the past year, he meant to say his
pants were on fire. But of all the hundreds of whoppers he’s
put out over the last 14 months, this one from Dec. 15,
2020, may be the biggest:
“I can’t emphasize enough that this is not forever. This is
once. One time, one month, one year.”
Would that it were, as John Kerry used to say — would that
it were. Actually, we are now in the second year, the 14th
month of this farce and it totally feels like forever.
When will Groundhog Day Part II ever end?
|
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
|
