 |
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, May 3, 2021
House Passes $47.7
Billion Budget
Gov Proposes Expanding Seat
Belt Law
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
One critic is calling a set of road bills filed on Monday by
Gov. Charlie Baker a “scary” plan that would expand police
officers’ ability to pull over drivers and allow red-light
cameras to be used in traffic enforcement.
“This will keep residents of Massachusetts safe and ensure
that fewer travelers are killed on our roads,” Baker said,
speaking at the State House. “This legislation includes
important provisions to ensure that the rules of the road
are followed and strict consequences if they’re not.”
Topping Baker’s legislation is an initiative to allow
so-called primary enforcement of seat belt laws, which would
allow officers to pull over motorists they believe aren’t
buckled up.
“It’s scary. It’s a bad idea,” said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
Massachusetts now enforces seat belt laws as secondary
enforcement, meaning police cannot pull over drivers for
seat belt use, but can write citations for drivers not
wearing seat belts who are pulled over for other reasons.
Ford predicted a backlash from opponents who will be worried
about racial stereotyping in an era when there is growing
concern over police accountability.
“In this climate, I don’t know how they can pursue it,” Ford
said.
The legislation would also allow cities and towns to use
red-light cameras for traffic enforcement, which Ford called
a “precursor” to insurance surcharges.
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 26, 2021
Critic decries ‘scary’ Charlie Baker bill
to expand police ability
to pull over motorists, allow red-light cameras
The Howie Carr Show
Monday, April 26, 2021
In this hour, Howie talks with Chip Ford, Executive Director
at Citizens for Limited Taxation
about stricter penalties for drivers.
Gov. Baker filed legislation that he says will “make
Massachusetts roadways and streets safer for all travelers
and will help reduce roadway fatalities across the state.” A
key section 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....
“This road safety package we’re filing today addresses some
of the most pressing issues that are facing commuters, and
we are confident that passing this bill will help reduce
roadway deaths and injuries and improve our transportation
system safety,” Baker said.
“Gov. Baker apparently is feeling control withdrawal with
the unavoidable loosening of his pandemic lockdown
mandates,” said Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation. “To compensate, he’s
lurched to his ‘suite of safety reforms’ to reclaim control
over his subjects … What a difference from Republican Gov.
Bill Weld, who vetoed the second mandatory seat belt law in
1994. Baker, a Weld administration protégé no less, now
intends to break the promise made by advocates of the law
that the state’s seat belt law isn’t and will never become
the sole reason for stopping a motorist: ‘primary
enforcement.’ It's not surprising that this and Baker’s
red-light camera ‘reform’ both generate revenue for the
state, or that it is proposed by an alleged Republican. This
is of course Massachusetts.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
April 26-30, 2021
Baker Files Legislation On Driving And
Roadway Laws
Gov. Charlie Baker pitched his new omnibus road safety
legislation as a way to improve the state's
almost-worst-in-the-nation seatbelt use and cut down on
traffic deaths that have not abated during a stretch of
pandemic-era decreased travel.
Some civil rights and transportation advocates caution,
however, that the route to safer roads Baker proposed (H
3706) is too punitive and could exacerbate racial profiling
of drivers -- a fear that Baker acknowledged.
The Vision Zero Coalition, which works to prevent traffic
deaths, criticized Baker's proposal to allow police to pull
motorists over solely for failing to wear a seatbelt and to
expand penalties on those who drive with suspended licenses.
"If you read the whole bill, there is not attention or care
to the potential for racial profiling," said Stacy Thompson,
executive director of the Livable Streets Alliance that is
part of the coalition. "In other states, we know that Black
folks are more likely to be pulled over for not wearing a
seatbelt. It's like another law on the books that doesn't
protect the most vulnerable and has been proven to cause
more harm to Black and brown people." ...
Rep. William Straus, who co-chairs the Legislature's
Transportation Committee, told the News Service on Wednesday
that he believes lawmakers are unlikely to tackle the
governor's wide-ranging road safety bill as an omnibus
package. Doing so would be a "massive undertaking," he said,
and instead the Legislature will focus on the sections that
have the best prospects for success.
Straus said primary seatbelt enforcement has "always been a
controversial issue," noting the feedback circulating in the
public and around Beacon Hill this session about the
potential for racial profiling.
"It's got to be aired out and discussed as to whether
primary enforcement of seatbelt laws becomes a pretextual
excuse for pulling someone over," Straus said. "There are
strong views on this one, so that will take a lot of work."
...
Thompson said the evolving national climate over the past
two years, featuring massive protests against racial
injustice and police violence, prompted her group to take a
more active role in opposing expanded seatbelt policing.
"We have never supported primary seatbelts, but we've never
been this vocal in opposition," Thompson said. "The national
conversation and context has changed so much that we think
it is literally our job to fight this stuff."
ACLU of Massachusetts Executive Director Carol Rose slammed
Baker's proposal as well, describing it as too focused on
expanding law enforcement authority. Instead, she said,
lawmakers and the administration should refocus on reforming
how police interact with the public.
State House News Service
Wednesday, April 28, 3031
Baker Seatbelt Reform Knocked Over
Profiling Concerns
Racial Justice Impacts Weighed in Road Safety Debate
A state constitutional amendment promoted by the
Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Service Employees
International Union adding a 4 percent surtax to all annual
income above $1 million could devastate innovative startups
dependent on Boston’s financial services industry for
funding, ultimately hampering the region’s recovery from the
COVID-19 economic recession, according to a new study
published by Pioneer Institute.
If passed, the surtax would give Massachusetts the highest
short-term capital gains tax rate in the nation and the
highest long-term capital gains tax rate in New England.
“The particularly punitive aspect of this proposal for
investors is that, unlike at the federal level, capital
gains can push you into a higher tax bracket under the
surtax,” said Greg Sullivan, who co-authored A Grim
Distinction: Massachusetts would have top marginal
short-term capital gains tax rate in the U.S. under the
proposed graduated income tax, with Andrew Mikula. “That
could be a significant deterrent to people who would
otherwise have invested in small businesses as they emerge
from the COVID crisis.”
Pioneer Institute
Monday, April 26, 2021
Study Warns Massachusetts Tax
Proposal Would Deter Investment,
Stifling the “Innovation Economy”
The proposed millionaires tax in Massachusetts could
“devastate” innovative startups dependent on Boston’s
financial services industry for funding, according to a
Pioneer Institute
study released on Monday.
That potential impact of the proposed 4% surtax to all
annual income above $1 million would hurt the state’s
recovery from the coronavirus pandemic economic recession,
Pioneer’s authors conclude in yet another study that hammers
the millionaires tax.
The surtax would give Massachusetts the highest short-term
capital gains tax rate in the nation (16%) and the highest
long-term capital gains tax rate in New England (9%).
“Raising taxes on capital gains via a graduated income tax
could devastate the financial services industry in Boston,
which has played a key role in fueling the region’s
innovation economy, as reflected in the numerous tech
start-ups in Kendall Square and the Seaport District,”
co-authors Greg Sullivan and Andrew Mikula wrote in the
report....
Last week, Pioneer published a study that said the
millionaires tax would “adversely impact” a significant
number of small-business owners in the Bay State.
The surtax 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, Pioneer wrote.
“This proposal couldn’t come at a worse time,” Sullivan said
Monday. “It would affect small- and medium-sized businesses
as they’re trying to come out of COVID, and as it looks like
they’re about to get walloped by a huge capital gains tax at
the federal level.”
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 26, 2021
Massachusetts millionaires tax could
‘devastate’ startups in Greater Boston: Report
The Bay State would have the highest short-term capital
gains tax rate in the U.S.
A Beacon Hill watchdog group wants lawmakers to delay voting
on a constitutional amendment to tax the state's wealthiest
residents.
In written testimony, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
asks legislative leaders to postpone a second and final vote
on the proposed amendment, which seeks a 4% surtax on the
portion of an individual's annual income above $1 million.
A "yes" vote would send the question to voters.
Eileen McAnneny, the foundation's president, said with the
economy still in flux, and the long-term effect of the
pandemic on the workplace unclear, lawmakers should halt the
push to tax top earners.
"Once they vote on this, there's no turning back," she said.
"We're just asking them not to do it until next year, until
we have a better sense of where things are."
The pandemic has upended the workplace, and McAnneny said
wealthy people no longer feel tied to a specific geographic
location.
She said that's a dynamic that wasn't in play when lawmakers
initially approved the "millionaires tax" nearly two years
ago.
"People have more options now about where they choose to
live and work," she said. "So the impact of this could be
more detrimental than we thought."
Backers say the measure has broad support, so there's no
reason to delay presenting it to voters.
The (Newburyport) Daily News
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
Watchdog seeks delay on 'millionaires
tax' vote
Proponents of taxing the rich in the service of shoring up
the state’s education, transportation and infrastructure are
well meaning, but shortsighted.
Schools and transportation agencies need funding to address
problems exacerbated by the pandemic, but adding a surcharge
to annual income above $1 million sets us up for a further
economic fall.
The measure, which could appear on the 2022 ballot, adds a
4% tax on incomes above $1 million for the purpose of
providing funds for public education, roads and bridges, and
public transportation. The tax would be in addition to the
state’s 5.05% flat income tax, for a total tax rate of 9.05%
on income above $1 million.
It seems simple enough to those who back such a move: We
need money, you have money, it’s only fair you give it to
us.
All of which ignores real-world fallout.
A new study published by the Pioneer Institute found that
the tax hike amendment could devastate innovative startups
who rely on Boston’s financial services industry for
funding. This in turn would hinder the region’s
post-pandemic recovery.
If passed, the surtax would give Massachusetts the highest
short-term capital gains tax rate in the nation and the
highest long-term capital gains tax rate in New England.
Good news for realtors in New Hampshire, not so much for the
Bay State.
A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
Wealthy tax hike robs Peter to pay Paul
Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios
submitted public testimony to
the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on Revenue
Pioneer Institute
7 Reasons to Reject the Graduated Tax and Instead Focus on
Growing Jobs
April 28, 2021
As a proposed tax on top earners inches toward the 2022
ballot, some lawmakers want to build a dam to hold back
future increases.
A bipartisan plan before the Legislature's Revenue Committee
would ask voters to amend the state Constitution by capping
the personal income tax rate at 6.25% to prevent the levy
from rising above that level. The flat tax rate went down to
5% in January 2019.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, the bill's
primary sponsor, said a separate proposal to amend the
Constitution to place a 4% surcharge on individuals making
more than $1 million per year creates the need for
safeguards to prevent the personal income tax rate from
rising.
"If we are going to go to that point, and put a tax rate
into the Constitution, then we should also have a limit on
how high it can be increased," he said.
To put the question before voters, Tarr's plan must be
approved by at least 50% of the House and Senate, meeting
together in two consecutive constitutional conventions. The
earliest it could appear on the ballot would be 2022....
Last year, a group of 90 economists wrote to Gov. Charlie
Baker and other top elected officials to make the case for
raising the state's income tax rate by one percentage point,
which they said will drum up more than $2.5 billion a year.
"These tax rates could be phased back as the economy returns
to its pre-recession level," the left-learning Massachusetts
Budget and Policy Center wrote....
Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot
question in 2000 to cut the personal income tax rate to 5%.
At the time the rate was 5.85%.
Two years after its passage, however, the Legislature
outraged supporters of the rollback by freezing the personal
income tax at 5.3% to plug budget shortfalls.
Lawmakers approved a process to reduce the tax rate if
growth in the state’s annual revenue met certain benchmarks.
But it took nearly two decades for the rate to come down to
5%, which happened in January 2019.
Tarr's proposal faces long odds on Beacon Hill, where
lawmakers are on the hunt for tax revenue to offset revenue
losses caused by the pandemic.
Chip Ford, of the group Citizens for Limited
Taxation, which advocated for the 2000 tax cut, said
he's doubtful the Democratic-controlled Legislature will act
on it.
"He's one of only three Republicans in the Senate," Ford
said. "It's a great idea, but I don't see this thing is
going anywhere."
The (Lawrence) Eagle-Tribune
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
Tarr seeks cap on state's income
tax rate
The first day of the House's fiscal year 2022 budget debate
ended more than 13 hours after it began on Monday with a
unanimous vote to add more than $10.9 million in spending to
the $47.6 billion budget proposal for education, local aid,
social services and veterans programs.
The vote on the first bulk amendment of the week capped a
day that featured very little debate and long periods of
inactivity on the floor as members, many of them
participating remotely this week, took part in three
separate private Zoom meetings to discuss hundreds of
amendments that had been separated into categories. In
addition to the topics dealt with in the first bulk
amendment, House lawmakers have also met to discuss
amendments related to health and human services, elder
affairs, public safety and the judiciary.
The annual budget debate began with the traditional
discussion of revenue amendments, of which there were only
17. The House voted to eliminate the 2022 sunset date on the
controversial film tax credit, expand the conservation land
tax credit program from $2 million to $5 million and extend
the historic rehabilitation tax credit by five years through
2027.
Later in the evening, the first consolidated amendment -
Consolidated A - emerged for consideration dealing with
186 amendments across four categories.
State House News Service
House Session Summary - Monday, April 26, 2021
First Day of House Budget Debate Ends
with Vote to Spent $10.9M
on Schools, Social Services and Veterans
The House tacked tens of millions of dollars in spending
onto its $47.6 billion fiscal year 2022 budget during its
second day of debate on Tuesday, working mostly behind
closed doors -- or more accurately, in private Zoom meetings
-- to compile amendment bundles that can be addressed with
single votes. Tuesday's nearly 11-hour session featured only
a few stretches of activity on the House floor, mostly when
lawmakers spoke in favor of and then approved three
different consolidated amendments.
Consolidated B •
Consolidated C
•
Consolidated D
State House News Service
House Session Summary - Tuesday,
April 27, 2021
The House tacked $4.87 million more onto its fiscal 2022
budget bill Wednesday with a mega-amendment that also
includes pay raises and throws the brakes on a Baker
administration transportation reform that has already
progressed through the procurement phase.
The
consolidated amendment [E] would impose a two-year
moratorium on the Baker administration's planned
consolidation within the Human Services Transportation
System, which provides millions of rides annually to
low-income and disabled residents.
State House News Service
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
House Amendment Targets Transportation
Reform, Includes Pay Raises
The House voted 160-0 to approve its fiscal 2022 budget
after 2:30 a.m Thursday, after adding tens of millions of
dollars to its bottom line across three days.
Through
its consolidated amendment process, the House took seven
roll call votes to add more than $59 million to what began
as a $47.65 billion bill. The final bottom line landed at
$47.716 billion, according to Speaker Ronald Mariano's
office.
The three consolidated amendments adopted Wednesday -- one
for constitutional officers, state administration and
transportation, one dealing with housing, energy and
environmental affairs and one involving labor and economic
development -- passed unanimously.
The $7.3 million energy, environment and housing amendment
also included language that Telecommunications, Utilities
and Energy Committee Chair Jeff Roy described as a
clarification of the climate policy law passed earlier this
year. Roy said the amendment clarifies the Legislature's
intent of procuring 5,600 megawatts of offshore wind "and
nothing less."
Before engrossing the bill, representatives also agreed to a
final amendment, worth over $7 million dollars, that was
described as technical and contained local earmarks. The
House plans to next meet in an informal session on Monday,
and before adjourning Mariano thanked representatives for
their patience "as we ground our way through" a partially
remote budget process.
State House News Service
House Session Summary - Wednesday, April 28, 2021
House Passes $47.7 Billion Budget
By Katie Lannan
State representatives said their second pandemic-era
spending plan charts “a path toward economic recovery” after
they unanimously passed a $47.7 billion state budget in the
wee hours of Thursday morning, capping three marathon days
of debate.
“This budget meets the needs of our residents who have
endured an unprecedented level of health and economic
challenges over the past year. The House continues to
support the services and programs that have proven to be
essential for so many, while making targeted investments to
grow the Massachusetts economy,” Speaker Ronald Mariano said
in a statement.
The fiscal 2022 budget process remains on time — which is
notable considering lawmakers delayed passage of the current
year’s spending plan by months last year in an attempt to
get a full grasp on the economic damage wrought by the
coronavirus pandemic....
The budget passed Thursday was about $60 million fatter than
the one budget writers proposed last week. Despite boosting
spending by about $1.8 billion over the current year, it
includes no new taxes and bumps up spending to some social
services programs prioritized by lawmakers amid the
coronavirus pandemic....
Members waded through more than 1,157 amendments, packaging
the majority of proposals into mega-amendments following
behind-closed-doors debate reminiscent of the former Speaker
Robert DeLeo’s reign.
Seven consolidated amendments were ultimately adopted, the
largest among them an $11.9 million labor and economic
development package.
Members separately approved $7.1 [million] in mostly local
spending....
Offering a “heartfelt thanks” to members for their patience
after the final vote came in just after the clock struck
2:30 a.m. on Thursday, the Quincy Democrat closed the books
on his first state budget process as speaker.
The process now moves to the Senate where members are
already predicting a showdown over a controversial film tax
credit that costs taxpayers upward of $80 million per year.
The two chambers will then reconcile any differences before
the budget moves to Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk sometime in
June.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, April 29, 2021
Massachusetts House unanimously
passes $47.7 billion budget
Massachusetts grew by enough people over the past decade to
keep all nine U.S. House seats as the state's population
climbed to more than 7 million over the past decade, but
Secretary of State William Galvin said Monday that the
process of redrawing Congressional districts still will be
challenging.
The U.S. Census Bureau released state population totals and
Congressional apportionment data on Monday, giving state
officials an early glimpse of what might be in store this
year as they wait for more specific community-level counts
later in the summer. The population totals govern not just
how many seats in Congress a state has, but also how
trillions of dollars in federal formula funding gets
allocated.
The 2020 Census effort, which was rife with political and
pandemic challenges, counted 7,029,917 people living in
Massachusetts, a 7.4 percent increase over the past decade
that outpaced the 4.1 percent average in the Northeast and
equaled the growth rate of the country as a whole.
The state may have avoided a fate similar to 10 years ago
when it lost a seat, but the growth likely means that
western Massachusetts districts represented by U.S. Rep
Richard Neal and U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern may need to be
expanded to grab more population, while the footprint of
eastern districts close to Boston may need to shrink or
shift west, Galvin said....
The state added 482,288 people since the decennial count in
2010, ensuring that its delegation to the House will remain
the same size while six southern and western states added
seats and seven other states, including New York, lost
representation in Congress.
"Today is good news for Massachusetts. Ten years ago we lost
a seat in Congress and we lost the influence it provided.
Today we know that we will not lose a seat and we will not
lose an electoral vote," Galvin said after the data was
released.
Massachusetts has not added a Congressional seat in over 110
years. The state had 16 members of Congress in 1910 and has
either held steady or lost seats every decade as more and
more of the House's 435 seats went to southern and western
states. The last time the size of the delegation did not
change was in 2000 when the state controlled 10 seats.
Galvin fought over the past year to make sure the U.S.
Census bureau did everything it could to capture the state's
student and immigrant populations, and he said the count
released Monday exceeded his estimates....
While the rate of growth in Massachusetts between 2010 and
2020 far outpaced the 3.1 percent growth recorded in the
previous decade, Acting U.S. Census Bureau Director Ron
Jarmin said the U.S. population grew to 331,449,281, a 7.4
percent rate increase over 2010 that was the second slowest
in recorded history behind only the 1930s.
Some states that were expected to lose seats, like Rhode
Island, did not, while others known to be growing rapidly
did not see their representation increase as predicted....
The South grew the fastest over the last decade (10.2
percent) followed by the West (9.2 percent), the Northeast
(4.1 percent) and the Midwest (3.1 percent).
Utah was fastest growing state, while three states - West
Virginia, Mississippi and Illinois - lost population,
officials said. Massachusetts is now the 15th largest state
in the country (down from 14th) and is still the fifth
densest state, with 901.2 people per square mile, and the
21st fastest growing state.
In total, seven Congressional seats will shift between 13
states based on the 2020 population count. Six states -
Texas (2), Colorado, Montana, Florida, North Carolina and
Oregon - will gain seats, while seven states - California,
Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West
Virginia - will lose seats. New York was 89 people short of
keeping its 27 seats in the House, Census officials said.
State House News Service
Monday, April 26, 2021
Uneven Growth Creates Mass. Redistricting
Challenge
Census: Mass. Population Grew 7.4 Percent in Last Decade
Economic activity is surging, based on an assortment of
metrics, and state tax collections continue to run well
ahead of budget benchmarks, with a telling report on April
receipts due out next week ...
The combination of strong tax collections, a rebounding
economy and an historic infusion of federal funds, with the
potential for much more based on President Joe Biden's
ambitious tax-and-spend plans, means Beacon Hill is not at a
loss for revenue to spend and instead challenged mostly by
how quickly to dish it out and where to spend it. The
revenue glut also comes at an interesting time politically
for the Legislature, which must convene a Constitutional
Convention in May when they could decide whether to send to
the 2022 statewide ballot an amendment adding a 4 percent
surtax on household income above $1 million.
It has been estimated that the new wealth tax could add $2
billion a year to the state's revenue kitty. Under the
amendment, revenue from the tax increase must only be spent
on education and transportation, two areas that are a major
focus of Biden's already approved American Rescue Act, and
his pending multi-trillion-dollar bills to invest in
infrastructure and domestic programs. The amendment,
together with Biden's plans to raise taxes on the wealthy
and corporations, represent a one-two punch to both raise
money for big spending plans with competitiveness
implications and to address growing income inequality in the
United States ...
APRIL REVENUES: Department of Revenue is expected to
announce total tax collections for the month of April,
typically the most significant month for tax revenues. When
it last updated its expectations in January, DOR was
projecting that it would collect $3.48 billion from
taxpayers in April but it has since moved the tax filing
deadline to May 17 to comport with the federal deadline,
meaning that some of what had been expected in April is
likely to bleed into May.
Nine months through fiscal year 2021, Massachusetts state
government has collected $22.588 billion in taxes from
people and businesses, which is $1.524 billion or 7.2
percent more than it did during the same nine mostly
pre-pandemic months of fiscal year 2020. For the last three
months, actual tax collections have blown DOR's monthly
benchmarks out of the water. The last month Massachusetts
saw a year-over-year decline in tax collections was
September.
Wednesday, May 5, 2021
RETROFITTING HOMES LEGISLATIVE BRIEFING: Mass Renews
Alliance hosts a legislative briefing to discuss legislation
(S 2226 / H 3365) that would call for retrofitting 1 million
Massachusetts homes over a 10-year period with greener
heating and electrical systems, prioritizing low-income
households and communities of color. (Wednesday, 10 a.m.)
...
State House News Service
Friday, April 30, 2021
Advances - Week of May 2, 2021
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of Sun Chroncile columnist
Bill Gouveia and his weekly contribution to the conversation
on local governments.
Indeed, I enjoyed his recent piece on Proposition 2½ 1/2
(“The Story Behind Prop. 2½,” City & Town, April 19),
however, I do disagree and offer the following thoughts and
points.
Since Prop. 2½ was adopted, inflation has averaged less than
2% annually. This is also true of the inflation component
that makes up the wage base.
Yes, inflation has wavered from time to time but that is one
reason why we pay for town services together.
One purpose for government is to share the expenses of
services so that the yearly volatility of costs are not
absorbed by residents and businesses. Therefore Prop. 2½ has
done its job on both counts.
A second reason for Prop. 2½ is to cap otherwise unlimited
spending growth. Government struggles with limiting its
spending. Very few towns are not taxing to the limit today
or even before COVID.
Similar to how a speed limiter can be used to limit the top
speed of a vehicle with an untrustworthy driver, today’s
municipal government needs to be restrained or residents
will face out of control spending efforts. To put the sole
decision of exceeding spending caps in the hands of a town
council, a select board or a mayor would be tragic for
taxpayers....
Additionally, while most infrastructure improvements within
the town can be planned and properly budgeted for, there are
occasionally unforeseen expenses that must be met.
But these are the exception and, by themselves, not a reason
to throw out a reasonable spending restraint such as Prop.
2.5.
In particular, select boards are generally not good at
strong financial management.
For whatever reason, perhaps the zeal to be re-elected or
lacking the necessary financial skill set, select boards
tend to think near-term and be reactive rather than think
strategically and long-term....
While there are pros and cons of the town meeting form of
government, one reason to end Prop . 2½ would be to
encourage resident participation in town meetings and
elections.
The upper bound of the law gives comfort to the taxpayer,
allowing them to feel less inclined to participate in their
local government.
Fear of out of control spending may be the incentive
necessary to turn 2% town meeting attendance into 50%
attendance. Even if this were so, there would still be
little immediate remedy for poor financial management by a
town council or select board. You can’t easily change the
old and ineffective guard quickly. It takes years.
Prop. 2½ has indeed kept up with inflation and gives
taxpayers comfort that their money is being appropriately
used, probably, but also has the residual of increased
apathy.
The Attleboro Sun Chronicle
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
How Prop. 2½ leads to voter apathy
By Steve Schoonveld |
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
For you to appreciate
why I'm still seemingly involved with the mandatory seat belt law from
thirty-five years ago, if you weren't around back then you need some
background. Believe me, it's not of my choosing to still be the
"go-to" guy whenever it comes up, but I'm still in reporters' Rolodexes
and get the calls. Here's a little of the back history which
explains why:
• Minding my own business and
enjoying my sign-painting business and life all around, in
1985 I became involved with my first political activity
beyond voting: Collecting signatures on a petition for
repeal of the Massachusetts mandatory seat belt law (MSBL).
Back then I didn't even know there was such a process!
After sufficient signatures were turned in, WRKO radio
talk-show host and repeal advocate Jerry Williams talked me
into coming into the station to discuss what was next to get
the law repealed, then he talked me into starting a ballot
committee. Having never done anything like that, I had
no idea what I was getting myself into. His
short-lived promise that I would never need to do any public
speaking ended on my way out of the studio, where I was
corralled by talk show host Moe Lauzier and roped into my
first (of hundreds to come) radio talk show the following
Saturday morning.
• I became comfortable
(confident) pubic speaking and debating over time. We
won our repeal campaign on the 1986 ballot but that was just
the beginning. Every spring starting in 1987 another
bill was introduced to bring back the mandatory seat belt
law, and I'd have to hike into the State House to defend our
victory before the Public Safety Committee. The major
auto and insurance industries had established a national
lobby group called Traffic Safety Now. Apparently I
needed to start an organization to counter it. What
can be more immediate than "Now"? My new group became
Freedom First. Over the next couple of years I
chartered Freedom First groups in twenty-two other states,
was flown out by their rooky leaders to testify before their
state legislatures which were considering MSBL laws of their
own, was taken around by my new friends to all their local
media outlets as their de facto spokesman. Freedom
First in Iowa, Freedom First in New Mexico, Freedom First in
Colorado, Freedom First in South Dakota, Freedom First in
Nebraska, etc. — I did a whole lot of travelling back then
at their expense for my transportation but on my own time;
at my request I was put up in one of their homes for my stay wherever
I went so I could better absorb local customs and
considerations.
• In October 1989 I was the only
opponent in the country invited to testify in Washington DC
before a U.S. Senate transportation sub-committee
considering a national MSBL. It never passed
out of that committee.
• The annual Rite of Spring
continued every year, defending Massachusetts motorists,
until the Legislature finally passed the second MSBL
in 1994 over Gov. Weld's veto at my request. Jerry
Williams and I launched our second repeal ballot
campaign almost ten years after the first, put it on the
1994 ballot. But on a chaotic ballot with no
explanations of what any of the nine ballot questions would
do, confused voters approved the seat belt law (thinking a
"Yes" vote was for repeal, but repeal required a "No" vote).
I threw up my hands, tossed in the towel on the MSBL — the
voters had spoken. Freedom First had moved on to other
issues such as drunk driving roadblocks, implied consent,
breathalyzer tests, privacy rights — and
reining-in-government issues such as a legislative pay raise
repeal, limited legislative sessions, and term limits.
• During that period Freedom
First and I teamed up with CLT on many issues and became
close allies, almost partners; CLT actually hired me as a
consultant for its last graduated income tax opposition
campaign in 1994 (while I was also leading the repeal of the
second seat belt law and pushing term limits,
all on the ballot that year). In 1996 CLT's
then-board of directors invited me to merge my Freedom First
organization with Citizens for Limited Taxation. One
of my demands if a merger was to happen was that the limited
government interests I'd been fighting for over the past
decade would be included among our mutual goals, thus the
merged organization legally became Citizens for Limited
Taxation & Government — Barbara Anderson and I become
its co-directors. After the then-recent Gingrich
Revolution of 1994 Newt was fond of saying "You can't have
limited government without limited taxation, and you can't
have limited taxation without limited government." Our
merger of Citizens for Limited Taxation and Freedom First
reflected that philosophy and fit the times. (We soon
decided to go back to just CLT when the name CLT&G became
too unwieldy a mouthful, but the website I established in
1996 remains cltg.org.)
• Thirty-five years later I
still get the calls whenever a mandatory seat belt law issue
arises. If you didn't already, now you know why.
In response to Beacon Hill Roll Call's
request for a comment on Baker's "suite of safety reforms"
including motorists being stopped on the suspicion of not
wearing a seat belt I replied:
“Gov. Baker apparently is feeling control withdrawal
with the unavoidable loosening of his pandemic lockdown
mandates,” said Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation. “To compensate,
he’s lurched to his ‘suite of safety reforms’ to reclaim
control over his subjects … What a difference from
Republican Gov. Bill Weld, who vetoed the second
mandatory seat belt law in 1994. Baker, a Weld
administration protégé no less, now intends to break the
promise made by advocates of the law that the state’s
seat belt law isn’t and will never become the sole
reason for stopping a motorist: ‘primary enforcement.’
It's not surprising that this and Baker’s red-light
camera ‘reform’ both generate revenue for the state, or
that it is proposed by an alleged Republican. This is of
course Massachusetts.”
Then there was this interview with Howie Carr on last
Monday:
The Pioneer Institute is demolishing
the latest proposed graduated income tax (aka, "Millionaires
Tax" of "Fair Share Amendment) scheme with its in depth
analysis of its costs, results, and other ramifications if
it is ever adopted. Last Monday it released its latest
report.
The
following day the Boston Herald editorial ("Wealthy tax hike
robs Peter to pay Paul") summed it up perfectly:
"It seems simple enough to those who back such a move:
We need money, you have money, it’s only fair you give
it to us."
The day the
report was released The Boston Herald reported on it ("Massachusetts
millionaires tax could ‘devastate’ startups in Greater
Boston: Report — The Bay State
would have the highest short-term capital gains tax rate in
the U.S."):
The proposed millionaires tax in
Massachusetts could “devastate” innovative startups
dependent on Boston’s financial services industry for
funding, according to a Pioneer Institute
study released on Monday.
That potential impact of the
proposed 4% surtax to all annual income above $1 million
would hurt the state’s recovery from the coronavirus
pandemic economic recession, Pioneer’s authors conclude
in yet another study that hammers the millionaires tax.
The surtax would give Massachusetts
the highest short-term capital gains tax rate in the
nation (16%) and the highest long-term capital gains tax
rate in New England (9%).
“Raising taxes on capital gains via
a graduated income tax could devastate the financial
services industry in Boston, which has played a key role
in fueling the region’s innovation economy, as reflected
in the numerous tech start-ups in Kendall Square and the
Seaport District,” co-authors Greg Sullivan and Andrew
Mikula wrote in the report....
Last week, Pioneer published a
study that said the millionaires tax would “adversely
impact” a significant number of small-business owners in
the Bay State.
The surtax 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, Pioneer wrote.
“This proposal couldn’t come at a
worse time,” Sullivan said Monday. “It would affect
small- and medium-sized businesses as they’re trying to
come out of COVID, and as it looks like they’re about to
get walloped by a huge capital gains tax at the federal
level.”
The
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation weighed in on it as well.
On Tuesday
The (Newburyport) Daily News reported ("Watchdog seeks delay
on 'millionaires tax' vote"):
A Beacon Hill watchdog group wants
lawmakers to delay voting on a constitutional amendment
to tax the state's wealthiest residents.
In written testimony, the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation asks legislative
leaders to postpone a second and final vote on the
proposed amendment, which seeks a 4% surtax on the
portion of an individual's annual income above $1
million.
A "yes" vote would send the
question to voters.
Eileen McAnneny, the foundation's
president, said with the economy still in flux, and the
long-term effect of the pandemic on the workplace
unclear, lawmakers should halt the push to tax top
earners.
"Once they vote on this, there's no
turning back," she said. "We're just asking them not to
do it until next year, until we have a better sense of
where things are."
The pandemic has upended the
workplace, and McAnneny said wealthy people no longer
feel tied to a specific geographic location.
She said that's a dynamic that
wasn't in play when lawmakers initially approved the
"millionaires tax" nearly two years ago.
"People have more options now about
where they choose to live and work," she said. "So the
impact of this could be more detrimental than we
thought."
Backers say the measure has broad
support, so there's no reason to delay presenting it to
voters.
On Friday
Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios submitted
public testimony to the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint
Committee on Revenue opposing this latest shot at imposing a
graduated income tax on Massachusetts taxpayers, The
Takers getting their foot in the door after
failing
in their past five attempts
(in 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1994):
Pioneer Institute
April 28, 2021
7 Reasons to Reject the Graduated Tax and Instead Focus on
Growing Jobs
Another
constitutional amendment has been proposed, this one to cap
the state income tax at 6.25%. Think it'll go anywhere
in the Legislature?
The (Lawrence) Eagle-Tribune reported on Tuesday ("Tarr
seeks cap on state's income tax rate"):
As a proposed tax on top earners
inches toward the 2022 ballot, some lawmakers want to
build a dam to hold back future increases.
A bipartisan plan before the
Legislature's Revenue Committee would ask voters to
amend the state Constitution by capping the personal
income tax rate at 6.25% to prevent the levy from rising
above that level. The flat tax rate went down to 5% in
January 2019.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr,
R-Gloucester, the bill's primary sponsor, said a
separate proposal to amend the Constitution to place a
4% surcharge on individuals making more than $1 million
per year creates the need for safeguards to prevent the
personal income tax rate from rising.
"If we are going to go to that
point, and put a tax rate into the Constitution, then we
should also have a limit on how high it can be
increased," he said.
To put the question before voters,
Tarr's plan must be approved by at least 50% of the
House and Senate, meeting together in two consecutive
constitutional conventions. The earliest it could appear
on the ballot would be 2022....
Last year, a group of 90 economists
wrote to Gov. Charlie Baker and other top elected
officials to make the case for raising the state's
income tax rate by one percentage point, which they said
will drum up more than $2.5 billion a year.
"These tax rates could be phased
back as the economy returns to its pre-recession level,"
the left-learning Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center
wrote....
Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly
approved a ballot question in 2000 to cut the personal
income tax rate to 5%. At the time the rate was 5.85%.
Two years after its passage,
however, the Legislature outraged supporters of the
rollback by freezing the personal income tax at 5.3% to
plug budget shortfalls.
Lawmakers approved a process to
reduce the tax rate if growth in the state’s annual
revenue met certain benchmarks. But it took nearly two
decades for the rate to come down to 5%, which happened
in January 2019.
Tarr's proposal faces long odds on
Beacon Hill, where lawmakers are on the hunt for tax
revenue to offset revenue losses caused by the pandemic.
Chip Ford, of the group
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which advocated for
the 2000 tax cut, said he's doubtful the
Democratic-controlled Legislature will act on it.
"He's one of only three Republicans
in the Senate," Ford said. "It's a great idea, but I
don't see this thing is going anywhere."
The
"temporary" income tax increase of 1989 was "temporary" only
in that it was hiked to 5.95 percent —
then was hiked again "temporarily" the next year to 6.25
percent. "It took CLT thirty years to get it back down
to its historic 5 percent," I pointed out to the reporter,
Christian Wade, during the interview. "Cap it right
where it is at 5 percent and I'll be impressed." It's
not going to happen at Sen. Tarr's proposed 6.25 percent so
why doesn't he take a real stand and swing for the
bleachers?
After a week of wrangling over the
1,157 proposed amendments, late at night (as usual) in the
wee hours of Thursday morning
the House unanimously passed its $47.7 billion state budget.
It increased spending by about $1.8 billion over the current
year, as it usually always does —
and that version hasn't even reached the state Senate, where
spending is traditionally bloated significantly even more.
Expect the FY 2022 budget to exceed $49 Billion before it
reaches Gov. Baker in June, July, August, whatever-whenever.
The Boston Herald reported on Thursday
— after no doubt getting some sleep
— ("Massachusetts House
unanimously passes $47.7 billion budget"):
State representatives said their
second pandemic-era spending plan charts “a path toward
economic recovery” after they unanimously passed a $47.7
billion state budget in the wee hours of Thursday
morning, capping three marathon days of debate.
“This budget meets the needs of our
residents who have endured an unprecedented level of
health and economic challenges over the past year. The
House continues to support the services and programs
that have proven to be essential for so many, while
making targeted investments to grow the Massachusetts
economy,” Speaker Ronald Mariano said in a statement.
The fiscal 2022 budget process
remains on time — which is notable considering lawmakers
delayed passage of the current year’s spending plan by
months last year in an attempt to get a full grasp on
the economic damage wrought by the coronavirus
pandemic....
The budget passed Thursday was
about $60 million fatter than the one budget writers
proposed last week. Despite boosting spending by about
$1.8 billion over the current year, it includes no new
taxes and bumps up spending to some social services
programs prioritized by lawmakers amid the coronavirus
pandemic....
Members waded through more than
1,157 amendments, packaging the majority of proposals
into mega-amendments following behind-closed-doors
debate reminiscent of the former Speaker Robert DeLeo’s
reign.
Seven consolidated amendments were
ultimately adopted, the largest among them an $11.9
million labor and economic development package.
Members separately approved $7.1
[million] in mostly local spending....
Offering a “heartfelt thanks” to
members for their patience after the final vote came in
just after the clock struck 2:30 a.m. on Thursday, the
Quincy Democrat closed the books on his first state
budget process as speaker.
The process now moves to the Senate
where members are already predicting a showdown over a
controversial film tax credit that costs taxpayers
upward of $80 million per year.
The two chambers will then
reconcile any differences before the budget moves to
Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk sometime in June.
I spent much of last week digging into
the so-called "consolidated amendments" where all those
1,157 amendments proposed by individual legislators get
bundled, buried from view. Most refer to just a
section of Massachusetts General Laws it wants to change,
sending you down a rabbit hole to see just what it actually
refers to. If you think that's easy give it a try
yourself. I couldn't find the next stealth attack on
Proposition 2½ as I expected, but it'll show up somewhere
I'm sure. Maybe you can find something I missed?
Here are the "consolidated amendments" for your education
and opportunity. See if you can find something I
missed:
Consolidated A
Consolidated B
Consolidated C
Consolidated D
Consolidated E
The State
House News Service reported on Monday ("Uneven Growth
Creates Mass. Redistricting Challenge
— Census: Mass. Population Grew 7.4 Percent in Last
Decade"):
Massachusetts grew by enough people
over the past decade to keep all nine U.S. House seats
as the state's population climbed to more than 7 million
over the past decade, but Secretary of State William
Galvin said Monday that the process of redrawing
Congressional districts still will be challenging.
The U.S. Census Bureau released
state population totals and Congressional apportionment
data on Monday, giving state officials an early glimpse
of what might be in store this year as they wait for
more specific community-level counts later in the
summer. The population totals govern not just how many
seats in Congress a state has, but also how trillions of
dollars in federal formula funding gets allocated.
The 2020 Census effort, which was
rife with political and pandemic challenges, counted
7,029,917 people living in Massachusetts, a 7.4 percent
increase over the past decade that outpaced the 4.1
percent average in the Northeast and equaled the growth
rate of the country as a whole.
The state may have avoided a fate
similar to 10 years ago when it lost a seat, but the
growth likely means that western Massachusetts districts
represented by U.S. Rep Richard Neal and U.S. Rep. Jim
McGovern may need to be expanded to grab more
population, while the footprint of eastern districts
close to Boston may need to shrink or shift west, Galvin
said....
The state added 482,288 people
since the decennial count in 2010, ensuring that its
delegation to the House will remain the same size while
six southern and western states added seats and seven
other states, including New York, lost representation in
Congress.
"Today is good news for
Massachusetts. Ten years ago we lost a seat in Congress
and we lost the influence it provided. Today we know
that we will not lose a seat and we will not lose an
electoral vote," Galvin said after the data was
released.
Massachusetts has not added a
Congressional seat in over 110 years. The state had 16
members of Congress in 1910 and has either held steady
or lost seats every decade as more and more of the
House's 435 seats went to southern and western states.
The last time the size of the delegation did not change
was in 2000 when the state controlled 10 seats.
Galvin fought over the past year to
make sure the U.S. Census bureau did everything it could
to capture the state's student and immigrant
populations, and he said the count released Monday
exceeded his estimates....
While the rate of growth in
Massachusetts between 2010 and 2020 far outpaced the 3.1
percent growth recorded in the previous decade, Acting
U.S. Census Bureau Director Ron Jarmin said the U.S.
population grew to 331,449,281, a 7.4 percent rate
increase over 2010 that was the second slowest in
recorded history behind only the 1930s.
Some states that were expected to
lose seats, like Rhode Island, did not, while others
known to be growing rapidly did not see their
representation increase as predicted....
The South grew the fastest over the
last decade (10.2 percent) followed by the West (9.2
percent), the Northeast (4.1 percent) and the Midwest
(3.1 percent).
Utah was fastest growing state,
while three states - West Virginia, Mississippi and
Illinois - lost population, officials said.
Massachusetts is now the 15th largest state in the
country (down from 14th) and is still the fifth densest
state, with 901.2 people per square mile, and the 21st
fastest growing state.
In total, seven Congressional seats
will shift between 13 states based on the 2020
population count. Six states - Texas (2), Colorado,
Montana, Florida, North Carolina and Oregon - will gain
seats, while seven states - California, Illinois,
Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia
- will lose seats. New York was 89 people short of
keeping its 27 seats in the House, Census officials said
I see the
big takeaway as: "The state added 482,288 people since
the decennial count in 2010 ... Galvin fought over the past
year to make sure the U.S. Census bureau did everything it
could to capture the state's student and immigrant
populations, and he said the count released Monday exceeded
his estimates." Do you suppose all those loaded
U-Haul trucks barreling out of the state helped, or was it
more likely the wave of Galvin's "immigrants" and visiting
college students that kept the Bay State population
relatively stable?
Most
interesting stats, though for the life of me I don't know
how Massachusetts is considered the
15th largest state in the country:
"The South grew the fastest over
the last decade (10.2 percent) followed by the West (9.2
percent), the Northeast (4.1 percent) and the Midwest
(3.1 percent).
"Utah was fastest growing state,
while three states - West Virginia, Mississippi and
Illinois - lost population, officials said.
Massachusetts is now the 15th largest state in the
country (down from 14th) and is still the fifth densest
state, with 901.2 people per square mile, and the 21st
fastest growing state.
"In total, seven Congressional
seats will shift between 13 states based on the 2020
population count. Six states - Texas (2), Colorado,
Montana, Florida, North Carolina and Oregon - will gain
seats, while seven states - California, Illinois,
Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia
- will lose seats. New York was 89 people short of
keeping its 27 seats in the House, Census officials
said."
In its Advances for the coming week the State House News
Service noted on Friday:
Economic activity is surging, based
on an assortment of metrics, and state tax collections
continue to run well ahead of budget benchmarks, with a
telling report on April receipts due out next week ...
The combination of strong tax
collections, a rebounding economy and an historic
infusion of federal funds, with the potential for much
more based on President Joe Biden's ambitious
tax-and-spend plans, means Beacon Hill is not at a loss
for revenue to spend and instead challenged mostly by
how quickly to dish it out and where to spend it. The
revenue glut also comes at an interesting time
politically for the Legislature, which must convene a
Constitutional Convention in May when they could decide
whether to send to the 2022 statewide ballot an
amendment adding a 4 percent surtax on household income
above $1 million.
It has been estimated that the new
wealth tax could add $2 billion a year to the state's
revenue kitty. Under the amendment, revenue from the tax
increase must only be spent on education and
transportation, two areas that are a major focus of
Biden's already approved American Rescue Act, and his
pending multi-trillion-dollar bills to invest in
infrastructure and domestic programs. The amendment,
together with Biden's plans to raise taxes on the
wealthy and corporations, represent a one-two punch to
both raise money for big spending plans with
competitiveness implications and to address growing
income inequality in the United States ...
APRIL REVENUES: Department of
Revenue is expected to announce total tax collections
for the month of April, typically the most significant
month for tax revenues. When it last updated its
expectations in January, DOR was projecting that it
would collect $3.48 billion from taxpayers in April but
it has since moved the tax filing deadline to May 17 to
comport with the federal deadline, meaning that some of
what had been expected in April is likely to bleed into
May.
Nine months through fiscal year
2021, Massachusetts state government has collected
$22.588 billion in taxes from people and businesses,
which is $1.524 billion or 7.2 percent more than it did
during the same nine mostly pre-pandemic months of
fiscal year 2020. For the last three months, actual tax
collections have blown DOR's monthly benchmarks out of
the water. The last month Massachusetts saw a
year-over-year decline in tax collections was September.
The News Service's Advances also noted upcoming on
Wednesday:
RETROFITTING HOMES LEGISLATIVE BRIEFING: Mass Renews
Alliance hosts a legislative briefing to discuss
legislation (S 2226 / H 3365) that would call for
retrofitting 1 million Massachusetts homes over a
10-year period with greener heating and electrical
systems, prioritizing low-income households and
communities of color. (Wednesday, 10 a.m.)
You ready
to retrofit you house to "save the planet"? Might want
to begin thinking about it, planning ahead.
In last
week's CLT Update I included the latest column by Attleboro
Sun Chronicle's
Bill Gouveia
again attacking Proposition 2½
and my response to him. An op-ed column appeared in
that paper on Tuesday written by
Steve Schoonveld, "How Prop. 2½ leads to voter apathy," also
in response to Gouveia's hit piece. The writer, Steve
Schoonveld, is a member of the Mansfield Select Board.
Here's an excerpt from it (the full column appears below in
Full News Reports):
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of
Sun Chroncile columnist Bill Gouveia and his weekly
contribution to the conversation on local governments.
Indeed, I enjoyed his recent piece
on Proposition 2½ (“The Story Behind Prop. 2½,” City &
Town, April 19), however, I do disagree and offer the
following thoughts and points.
Since Prop. 2½ was adopted,
inflation has averaged less than 2% annually. This is
also true of the inflation component that makes up the
wage base.
Yes, inflation has wavered from
time to time but that is one reason why we pay for town
services together.
One purpose for government is to
share the expenses of services so that the yearly
volatility of costs are not absorbed by residents and
businesses. Therefore Prop. 2½ has done its job on both
counts.
A second reason for Prop. 2½ is to
cap otherwise unlimited spending growth. Government
struggles with limiting its spending. Very few towns are
not taxing to the limit today or even before COVID.
Similar to how a speed limiter can
be used to limit the top speed of a vehicle with an
untrustworthy driver, today’s municipal government needs
to be restrained or residents will face out of control
spending efforts. To put the sole decision of exceeding
spending caps in the hands of a town council, a select
board or a mayor would be tragic for taxpayers....
Additionally, while most
infrastructure improvements within the town can be
planned and properly budgeted for, there are
occasionally unforeseen expenses that must be met.
But these are the exception and, by
themselves, not a reason to throw out a reasonable
spending restraint such as Prop. 2.5.
In particular, select boards are
generally not good at strong financial management.
For whatever reason, perhaps the
zeal to be re-elected or lacking the necessary financial
skill set, select boards tend to think near-term and be
reactive rather than think strategically and
long-term....
While there are pros and cons of
the town meeting form of government, one reason to end
Prop . 2½ would be to encourage resident participation
in town meetings and elections.
The upper bound of the law gives
comfort to the taxpayer, allowing them to feel less
inclined to participate in their local government.
Fear of out of control spending may
be the incentive necessary to turn 2% town meeting
attendance into 50% attendance. Even if this were so,
there would still be little immediate remedy for poor
financial management by a town council or select board.
You can’t easily change the old and ineffective guard
quickly. It takes years.
Prop. 2½ has indeed kept up with
inflation and gives taxpayers comfort that their money
is being appropriately used, probably, but also has the
residual of increased apathy.
Still Feeling "Lucky In Kentucky"
For those
interested in following my escape over two years ago to my
sanctuary state (also one of the four "commonwealths" in the
nation) of Kentucky, I'm still feeling "Lucky
In Kentucky", as I wrote in my first column (and only
one so far though I've been invited to submit more, but I
work for CLT 12-hours a day, seven days a week so haven't
found the time). I've said it before: "The
Massachusetts Way" isn't the only way and it
doesn't need to be. The Kentucky state
legislature, called the General Assembly, has already shut
down for the year, prorogued sine die on March 30.
As "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the
legislature is in session," we Kentuckians under its state
constitution are safe until next January. No
legislating can or will occur until then. Legislators
have completed business for 2021, went home and have been
there for over a month now. The way things ought to
— and can
—
be!
For those
so inclined, you can read about the results of this year's
completed Kentucky legislative session
at the bottom of the full news reports.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
Full News Reports Follow
(excerpted above) |
|
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 26, 2021
Critic decries ‘scary’ Charlie Baker bill to expand police
ability
to pull over motorists, allow red-light cameras
By Erin Tiernan
One critic is calling a set of road bills filed on Monday by
Gov. Charlie Baker a “scary” plan that would expand police
officers’ ability to pull over drivers and allow red-light
cameras to be used in traffic enforcement.
“This will keep residents of Massachusetts safe and ensure
that fewer travelers are killed on our roads,” Baker said,
speaking at the State House. “This legislation includes
important provisions to ensure that the rules of the road
are followed and strict consequences if they’re not.”
Topping Baker’s legislation is an initiative to allow
so-called primary enforcement of seat belt laws, which would
allow officers to pull over motorists they believe aren’t
buckled up.
“It’s scary. It’s a bad idea,” said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
Massachusetts now enforces seat belt laws as secondary
enforcement, meaning police cannot pull over drivers for
seat belt use, but can write citations for drivers not
wearing seat belts who are pulled over for other reasons.
Ford predicted a backlash from opponents who will be worried
about racial stereotyping in an era when there is growing
concern over police accountability.
“In this climate, I don’t know how they can pursue it,” Ford
said.
The legislation would also allow cities and towns to use
red-light cameras for traffic enforcement, which Ford called
a “precursor” to insurance surcharges.
According to Baker’s announcement, “Cameras would be
restricted to collecting photographs only upon a violation
and only of the vehicle license plates. Violations would
include running a red light and making an illegal turn on a
red light.”
Despite a drop in traffic amid the pandemic, Massachusetts
saw 334 roadway deaths in 2020, which Baker said was “almost
even” with the 336 deaths in 2019.
The package of bills also includes a provision that would
build on Haley’s Law — a 2014 law named after 20-year-old
Haley Cremer who was struck and killed by a driver with a
suspended license — to increase penalties for drivers who
cause injuries when they’re driving with suspended licenses.
“She was 20 and just entering the prime of her life,” Marc
Cremer, Haley Cremer’s father, said in an emotional address
on Monday. “This was no random accident. This was
preventable.”
“If enacting penalties commensurate with the recklessness
and negligence of this behavior prevents one crash — and it
will — we will save another family, more likely many
families, from the horror my wife, daughter and I live with
every day,” Marc Cremer continued. “Driving a vehicle in
Massachusetts is not a right, it’s a privilege.”
Another provision of the bill would require drivers to pass
bicyclists safely by allowing a 3-foot buffer when there is
no physical barrier protecting riders.
The Howie Carr Show
Monday, April 26, 2021
In this hour, Howie talks with Chip Ford, Executive Director
at Citizens for Limited Taxation
about stricter penalties for drivers.
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Volume 46 - Report No. 18
April 26-30, 2021
By Bob Katzen
BAKER FILES LEGISLATION ON DRIVING AND ROADWAY LAWS – Gov.
Baker filed legislation that he says will “make
Massachusetts roadways and streets safer for all travelers
and will help reduce roadway fatalities across the state.” A
key section 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 include increasing penalties for
individuals who cause personal injury while driving on a
non-administratively suspended license; allowing cities and
towns to place red light cameras at intersections to take a
photograph of the vehicle’s license plate only upon a
traffic violation including running a red light and making
an illegal turn on a red light; and requiring a driver to
maintain a three-foot “safe passing distance” and to travel
at a speed that is reasonable and proper when passing a
bicyclist or pedestrian when there isn’t any physical
separation like a protected bike lane or curb.
“This road safety package we’re filing today addresses some
of the most pressing issues that are facing commuters, and
we are confident that passing this bill will help reduce
roadway deaths and injuries and improve our transportation
system safety,” Baker said.
“Gov. Baker apparently is feeling control withdrawal with
the unavoidable loosening of his pandemic lockdown
mandates,” said Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation. “To compensate, he’s
lurched to his ‘suite of safety reforms’ to reclaim control
over his subjects … What a difference from Republican Gov.
Bill Weld, who vetoed the second mandatory seat belt law in
1994. Baker, a Weld administration protégé no less, now
intends to break the promise made by advocates of the law
that the state’s seat belt law isn’t and will never become
the sole reason for stopping a motorist: ‘primary
enforcement.’ It's not surprising that this and Baker’s
red-light camera ‘reform’ both generate revenue for the
state, or that it is proposed by an alleged Republican. This
is of course Massachusetts.”
State House News Service
Wednesday, April 28, 3031
Baker Seatbelt Reform Knocked Over Profiling Concerns
Racial Justice Impacts Weighed in Road Safety Debate
By Chris Lisinski
Gov. Charlie Baker pitched his new omnibus road safety
legislation as a way to improve the state's
almost-worst-in-the-nation seatbelt use and cut down on
traffic deaths that have not abated during a stretch of
pandemic-era decreased travel.
Some civil rights and transportation advocates caution,
however, that the route to safer roads Baker proposed (H
3706) is too punitive and could exacerbate racial profiling
of drivers -- a fear that Baker acknowledged.
The Vision Zero Coalition, which works to prevent traffic
deaths, criticized Baker's proposal to allow police to pull
motorists over solely for failing to wear a seatbelt and to
expand penalties on those who drive with suspended licenses.
"If you read the whole bill, there is not attention or care
to the potential for racial profiling," said Stacy Thompson,
executive director of the Livable Streets Alliance that is
part of the coalition. "In other states, we know that Black
folks are more likely to be pulled over for not wearing a
seatbelt. It's like another law on the books that doesn't
protect the most vulnerable and has been proven to cause
more harm to Black and brown people."
Massachusetts law currently requires seatbelt use, but it is
a secondary enforcement law, meaning police can only cite
motorists for failing to wear a seatbelt when they have
already stopped the vehicle for another primary traffic
violation such as speeding.
Thirty-four other states have laws allowing primary
enforcement of seatbelt use, according to Baker.
More than half of the people killed on Massachusetts
roadways were not wearing seatbelts at the time of the
accident, Highway Safety Division Director Jeff Larason said
on Monday, noting that the Bay State ranks 46th out of 50
states in rate of seatbelt use.
Thompson said she agrees that state law should continue to
mandate seatbelt use, but she does not believe it should
qualify as a primary reason police can stop a driver, on
similar footing to speeding, texting or other behaviors that
put others at risk.
The governor acknowledged that his proposal might raise some
worries, calling for lawmakers to work with the
administration to find an amenable solution.
"While I believe this is essential to road safety, I am
aware of concerns that such a law could be misused or
misapplied and look forward to working together to address
those concerns," Baker wrote in a letter to the House and
Senate alongside his bill.
Rep. William Straus, who co-chairs the Legislature's
Transportation Committee, told the News Service on Wednesday
that he believes lawmakers are unlikely to tackle the
governor's wide-ranging road safety bill as an omnibus
package. Doing so would be a "massive undertaking," he said,
and instead the Legislature will focus on the sections that
have the best prospects for success.
Straus said primary seatbelt enforcement has "always been a
controversial issue," noting the feedback circulating in the
public and around Beacon Hill this session about the
potential for racial profiling.
"It's got to be aired out and discussed as to whether
primary enforcement of seatbelt laws becomes a pretextual
excuse for pulling someone over," Straus said. "There are
strong views on this one, so that will take a lot of work."
Baker also proposed primary seatbelt enforcement last
lawmaking session, but his suggestion did not meet with the
same criticism it did this week.
Thompson said the evolving national climate over the past
two years, featuring massive protests against racial
injustice and police violence, prompted her group to take a
more active role in opposing expanded seatbelt policing.
"We have never supported primary seatbelts, but we've never
been this vocal in opposition," Thompson said. "The national
conversation and context has changed so much that we think
it is literally our job to fight this stuff."
ACLU of Massachusetts Executive Director Carol Rose slammed
Baker's proposal as well, describing it as too focused on
expanding law enforcement authority. Instead, she said,
lawmakers and the administration should refocus on reforming
how police interact with the public.
"Driving safety is an important issue, but policymakers must
also address the presence of racial profiling on our streets
and highways," Rose said in a statement. "Data shows that
Black and Brown drivers are already significantly more
likely to be stopped by police and have their vehicle
searched, but less likely to be issued a citation. And
across the country, traffic stops too often result in police
violence and killings of Black men like Daunte Wright."
"If we are ever to end police violence, we must re-examine
approaches to public safety entirely -- and work actively to
reduce the role, scale, power, and funding of the police,"
Rose continued.
Thompson also pointed to the early returns from a distracted
driving and data collection law that took effect in
Massachusetts last year. WCVB reported in December that, in
the first nine months the law was in effect, non-white
drivers in Massachusetts were more likely to be cited than
white drivers and less likely to receive only a warning.
"We have new data," Thompson continued. "Since the last time
the governor filed these bills, we've passed hands-free,
we've collected data, we know racial profiling is happening
and it's more likely to happen with state troopers. You
should not refile something if you have new data that tells
you you might need to rethink."
Another section of Baker's bill would create harsher
penalties for motorists who drive with a suspended license
and cause injury or death, building on the 2015 "Haley's
Law" requiring the Registry of Motor Vehicles to notify
police when a resident of their community has had their
license suspended.
The bill would impose a fine up to $1,000 and up to five
years in prison for driving negligently or recklessly on a
suspended license, a fine up to $3,000 and up to five years
in prison for causing serious bodily injury, and a fine up
to $5,000 and between two and 10 years in prison for causing
death.
Baker and supporters said drivers will be less likely to get
behind the wheel after a license suspension if they know the
consequences would be worse.
Straus said giving the RMV and courts more tools to handle
drivers who have already proved dangerous on the road is
"probably the first issue to focus on" for the House.
Criticizing the expansion of penalties, Thompson and the
Vision Zero Coalition cited research from the National
Institute of Justice that found stricter punishment "does
little to deter crime."
Advocates who raised flags about the role of policing under
Baker's bill praised other sections of the proposal,
including creation of a three-foot "safe passing distance"
vehicles would need to take around pedestrians and
bicyclists and requirement for vehicles over 10,000 pounds
to install side guards, convex mirrors and cross-over
mirrors.
Baker's bill also creates an option for municipalities to
deploy cameras in intersections where they choose.
The Senate started debate on a similar proposal last
session, but tabled the bill after it drew blowback from
both Democrats and Republicans. Asked about the proposal's
chances in the House, Straus said it "is going to require
some debate" because of "skepticism" about the role of red
light cameras.
The Vision Zero Coalition has supported the deployment of
red light cameras, but Thompson said the governor's language
"is not comprehensive enough" on that front, particularly
because the cameras would only be used in response to
violations such as running a red light or making an illegal
turn on red.
"If we're using a data-driven approach, we need to focus on
speed, so it was shocking to me that the governor was
interested in advancing red light cameras but was not
interested in focusing on camera enforcement related to
speed," she said.
During his Monday press conference, Baker said speed was a
"primary cause in many cases" of the 334 roadway deaths in
Massachusetts last year.
Pioneer Institute
Monday, April 26, 2021
Study Warns Massachusetts Tax Proposal Would Deter
Investment,
Stifling the “Innovation Economy”
A state constitutional amendment promoted by the
Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Service Employees
International Union adding a 4 percent surtax to all annual
income above $1 million could devastate innovative startups
dependent on Boston’s financial services industry for
funding, ultimately hampering the region’s recovery from the
COVID-19 economic recession, according to a new study
published by Pioneer Institute.
If passed, the surtax would give Massachusetts the highest
short-term capital gains tax rate in the nation and the
highest long-term capital gains tax rate in New England.
“The particularly punitive aspect of this proposal for
investors is that, unlike at the federal level, capital
gains can push you into a higher tax bracket under the
surtax,” said Greg Sullivan, who co-authored A Grim
Distinction: Massachusetts would have top marginal
short-term capital gains tax rate in the U.S. under the
proposed graduated income tax, with Andrew Mikula. “That
could be a significant deterrent to people who would
otherwise have invested in small businesses as they emerge
from the COVID crisis.”
Research has shown that growth in new “innovation economy”
companies exhibits a “multiplier effect” whereby every job
created in a high-tech firm supports the creation of up to
five more jobs in other sectors of the economy. These other
jobs often include low-skill service positions,
demonstrating the widespread economic advantages of
facilitating private investment in startups. The graduated
income tax would provide a powerful disincentive to
taxpayers to invest their money in Massachusetts firms.
Pioneer Institute questions the legality of the view held by
amendment proponents and the Massachusetts Department of
Revenue that the amendment should be interpreted as applying
to income from short-term and long-term capital gains. That
said, the new study presents an analysis based on DOR’s
initial interpretation that the surtax would indeed apply to
capital gains.
The new study also demonstrates a correlation between the
top marginal tax rate on capital gains and the average value
of those gains among millionaires at the state level. Most
of the states where average capital gains among the wealthy
are the highest have no personal income taxes at all,
including Wyoming, Nevada, and Florida. Meanwhile, some of
the states with the most prominent financial services
sectors in the country, such as New York, California, and
New Jersey, have lower capital gains averages and much
higher tax rates.
In 2014, the Tax Foundation found that, at 28.1 percent,
Massachusetts had a lower combined state and federal capital
gains tax rate than the national average of 28.7 percent.
However, only California taxes short-term capital gains,
such as those from day trading, at a higher rate than
Massachusetts.
The graduated income tax proposal would give Massachusetts a
short-term capital gains tax rate of 16 percent, far above
California’s 13.3 percent. On long-term capital gains,
Massachusetts would have a tax rate of 9 percent, higher
than that of each of its neighboring states, including New
York.
“It’s an obvious point that promoters of the surtax cannot
respond to: such sky-high taxes on capital gains will lower
the level of investment activity in the state. Why that
matters is that over the past several decades, Cambridge,
South Boston, and other areas have enjoyed a remarkable
economic renaissance driven by innovative firms,” said
Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. “Our
innovation clusters rely heavily on Boston’s strong
investment industry. If we put the investment industry at a
disadvantage, we will weaken our innovation clusters, the
demand for products and services from industries that do
business with our innovation clusters, and ultimately job
creation.”
The number of jobs in the financial services sector itself
is also significant. In Massachusetts, over 191,000 people
worked in either finance or insurance in 2019, and 77
percent of those jobs were in Greater Boston.
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 26, 2021
Massachusetts millionaires tax could ‘devastate’ startups in
Greater Boston: Report
The Bay State would have the highest short-term capital
gains tax rate in the U.S.
By Rick Sobey
The proposed millionaires tax in Massachusetts could
“devastate” innovative startups dependent on Boston’s
financial services industry for funding, according to a
Pioneer Institute
study released on Monday.
That potential impact of the proposed 4% surtax to all
annual income above $1 million would hurt the state’s
recovery from the coronavirus pandemic economic recession,
Pioneer’s authors conclude in yet another study that hammers
the millionaires tax.
The surtax would give Massachusetts the highest short-term
capital gains tax rate in the nation (16%) and the highest
long-term capital gains tax rate in New England (9%).
“Raising taxes on capital gains via a graduated income tax
could devastate the financial services industry in Boston,
which has played a key role in fueling the region’s
innovation economy, as reflected in the numerous tech
start-ups in Kendall Square and the Seaport District,”
co-authors Greg Sullivan and Andrew Mikula wrote in the
report.
“Not only does Greater Boston’s financial services industry
catalyze job creation in other sectors, but it also employs
some 147,000 people itself as of 2019, making up 77 percent
of total state financial services employment,” they added.
Last week, Pioneer published a study that said the
millionaires tax would “adversely impact” a significant
number of small-business owners in the Bay State.
The surtax 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, Pioneer wrote.
“This proposal couldn’t come at a worse time,” Sullivan said
Monday. “It would affect small- and medium-sized businesses
as they’re trying to come out of COVID, and as it looks like
they’re about to get walloped by a huge capital gains tax at
the federal level.”
President Biden will reportedly propose increasing the
capital gains tax rate to 39.6% for those earning $1 million
or more, according to Bloomberg.
Proponents of the Massachusetts millionaires tax — who call
it the “Fair Share Amendment” — say the measure could
bolster education and transportation funding by $2 billion.
“The Pioneer Institute clearly cares more about protecting
the profits of hedge fund day traders than they do about our
schools or our crumbling transportation infrastructure,”
Raise Up Massachusetts, the coalition behind the amendment,
said in a statement Monday.
“As thousands of Massachusetts families and small businesses
struggle during the COVID-19 pandemic, multi-millionaire
investors have seen their net worth skyrocket,” Raise Up
added. “It’s only fair for wealthy investors to pay a little
more to help fund long-term investments in our
transportation and public education needs. That’s how we
build a strong economy for the rest of us.”
The (Newburyport) Daily News
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
Watchdog seeks delay on 'millionaires tax' vote
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse reporter
A Beacon Hill watchdog group wants lawmakers to delay voting
on a constitutional amendment to tax the state's wealthiest
residents.
In written testimony, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
asks legislative leaders to postpone a second and final vote
on the proposed amendment, which seeks a 4% surtax on the
portion of an individual's annual income above $1 million.
A "yes" vote would send the question to voters.
Eileen McAnneny, the foundation's president, said with the
economy still in flux, and the long-term effect of the
pandemic on the workplace unclear, lawmakers should halt the
push to tax top earners.
"Once they vote on this, there's no turning back," she said.
"We're just asking them not to do it until next year, until
we have a better sense of where things are."
The pandemic has upended the workplace, and McAnneny said
wealthy people no longer feel tied to a specific geographic
location.
She said that's a dynamic that wasn't in play when lawmakers
initially approved the "millionaires tax" nearly two years
ago.
"People have more options now about where they choose to
live and work," she said. "So the impact of this could be
more detrimental than we thought."
Backers say the measure has broad support, so there's no
reason to delay presenting it to voters.
"We've seen strong support among the public for asking
multimillionaires to pay their fair share of state taxes,"
said Andrew Farnitano, spokesman for Raise Up Massachusetts,
a coalition of unions, faith organizations and community
groups.
"We've got some help from the federal government to get
through this crisis, but we need a sustainable funding
source for transportation and education needs," he said.
The Legislature's Joint Committee on Revenue is accepting
written testimony on the proposal this week ahead of a vote
to advance the measure to the full House and Senate for a
final vote, which could come in May or early June.
The vote would not authorize the tax, but it is one of the
final hurdles to putting it on the November 2022 ballot.
In 2019, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate, meeting
as a constitutional convention, voted 147-48 along party
lines to put the question on the 2022 ballot.
The amendment requires a second favorable vote during the
current two-year session before it can be put before voters.
McAnneny said delaying the vote by lawmakers still leaves
time to put it on the ballot, if that's what they decide to
do.
Backers of the tax say it would drum up to $2 billion in
much-needed revenue for education and transportation
spending.
Opponents, including Republicans and pro-business
organizations, argue the measure could put a drag on the
state's economy as it recovers from the pandemic.
A similar referendum was set to appear on the November 2018
ballot until the Supreme Judicial Court ruled it
unconstitutional.
The latest version takes a different path to the ballot,
which supporters say passes legal muster.
Massachusetts is one of several states looking to increase
taxes on its wealthiest residents to drum up more money for
post-pandemic recovery.
Last year, New Jersey passed its own tax, increasing the
income tax rate for those making $1 million or more. In New
York, couples who make more than $2 million per year will
see their income tax rate increase to 9.65% from 8.82% under
a deal between Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislative leaders.
In Congress, lawmakers are considering a bill filed by Sen.
Elizabeth Warren, D-Cambridge, that would set a 3% wealth
tax for the nation's biggest earners.
— Christian M. Wade covers
the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media
Group’s newspapers and websites.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
A Boston Herald editorial
Wealthy tax hike robs Peter to pay Paul
Proponents of taxing the rich in the service of shoring up
the state’s education, transportation and infrastructure are
well meaning, but shortsighted.
Schools and transportation agencies need funding to address
problems exacerbated by the pandemic, but adding a surcharge
to annual income above $1 million sets us up for a further
economic fall.
The measure, which could appear on the 2022 ballot, adds a
4% tax on incomes above $1 million for the purpose of
providing funds for public education, roads and bridges, and
public transportation. The tax would be in addition to the
state’s 5.05% flat income tax, for a total tax rate of 9.05%
on income above $1 million.
It seems simple enough to those who back such a move: We
need money, you have money, it’s only fair you give it to
us.
All of which ignores real-world fallout.
A new study published by the Pioneer Institute found that
the tax hike amendment could devastate innovative startups
who rely on Boston’s financial services industry for
funding. This in turn would hinder the region’s
post-pandemic recovery.
If passed, the surtax would give Massachusetts the highest
short-term capital gains tax rate in the nation and the
highest long-term capital gains tax rate in New England.
Good news for realtors in New Hampshire, not so much for the
Bay State.
“The particularly punitive aspect of this proposal for
investors is that, unlike at the federal level, capital
gains can push you into a higher tax bracket under the
surtax,” said Greg Sullivan, who co-authored A Grim
Distinction: Massachusetts would have top marginal
short-term capital gains tax rate in the U.S. under the
proposed graduated income tax, with Andrew Mikula. “That
could be a significant deterrent to people who would
otherwise have invested in small businesses as they emerge
from the COVID crisis.”
Research has shown that every job created in a high-tech
firm supports the creation of up to five more jobs in other
sectors of the economy. These other jobs often include
low-skill service positions. The graduated income tax would
provide a huge disincentive to taxpayers to invest in
Massachusetts companies.
“It’s an obvious point that promoters of the surtax cannot
respond to: Such sky-high taxes on capital gains will lower
the level of investment activity in the state. Why that
matters is that over the past several decades, Cambridge,
South Boston and other areas have enjoyed a remarkable
economic renaissance driven by innovative firms,” said
Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. “Our
innovation clusters rely heavily on Boston’s strong
investment industry. If we put the investment industry at a
disadvantage, we will weaken our innovation clusters, the
demand for products and services from industries that do
business with our innovation clusters, and ultimately job
creation.”
Case in point: Boston’s Innovation District, aka the
Seaport. This tidy chunk of city real estate was booming
pre-pandemic, as tech firms and creative companies flocked
to the startup-friendly area. Office buildings, then condos
sprouted like weeds, and following them, restaurants and
retail. The domino effect of entrepreneurial support can’t
be underestimated.
Nor should it be undermined. Throwing a wrench into the
business-funding machinery would do nothing to help Boston,
and the state, recover and grow.
That is as much a priority as education and infrastructure.
The (Lawrence) Eagle-Tribune
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
Tarr seeks cap on state's income tax rate
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse reporter
As a proposed tax on top earners inches toward the 2022
ballot, some lawmakers want to build a dam to hold back
future increases.
A bipartisan plan before the Legislature's Revenue Committee
would ask voters to amend the state Constitution by capping
the personal income tax rate at 6.25% to prevent the levy
from rising above that level. The flat tax rate went down to
5% in January 2019.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, the bill's
primary sponsor, said a separate proposal to amend the
Constitution to place a 4% surcharge on individuals making
more than $1 million per year creates the need for
safeguards to prevent the personal income tax rate from
rising.
"If we are going to go to that point, and put a tax rate
into the Constitution, then we should also have a limit on
how high it can be increased," he said.
To put the question before voters, Tarr's plan must be
approved by at least 50% of the House and Senate, meeting
together in two consecutive constitutional conventions. The
earliest it could appear on the ballot would be 2022.
While there are currently no plans on Beacon Hill to
increase the income tax rate, legislative leaders have been
under pressure from progressive groups to come up with new
sources of revenue to offset the financial blow from the
pandemic.
Last year, a group of 90 economists wrote to Gov. Charlie
Baker and other top elected officials to make the case for
raising the state's income tax rate by one percentage point,
which they said will drum up more than $2.5 billion a year.
"These tax rates could be phased back as the economy returns
to its pre-recession level," the left-learning Massachusetts
Budget and Policy Center wrote.
Tarr has filed a bill every legislative session to lower the
income tax rate, but his proposals have been stymied in a
Legislature controlled by Democrats.
This is the first time he has proposed putting the question
to voters. And he has picked up bipartisan support, with
Sen. Joanne Commerford, D-Northampton, signing onto the
bill.
Lawmakers who oppose dropping the rate argue that the state
would take a major hit with less money for schools,
transportation and other needs.
Income tax collections represent more than 58% of the
revenue used to keep state government running.
Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot
question in 2000 to cut the personal income tax rate to 5%.
At the time the rate was 5.85%.
Two years after its passage, however, the Legislature
outraged supporters of the rollback by freezing the personal
income tax at 5.3% to plug budget shortfalls.
Lawmakers approved a process to reduce the tax rate if
growth in the state’s annual revenue met certain benchmarks.
But it took nearly two decades for the rate to come down to
5%, which happened in January 2019.
Tarr's proposal faces long odds on Beacon Hill, where
lawmakers are on the hunt for tax revenue to offset revenue
losses caused by the pandemic.
Chip Ford, of the group Citizens for Limited
Taxation, which advocated for the 2000 tax cut, said
he's doubtful the Democratic-controlled Legislature will act
on it.
"He's one of only three Republicans in the Senate," Ford
said. "It's a great idea, but I don't see this thing is
going anywhere."
— Christian M. Wade covers
the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media
Group’s newspapers and websites.
State House News Service
House Session Summary - Monday, April 26, 2021
First Day of House Budget Debate Ends with Vote to Spent
$10.9M
on Schools, Social Services and Veterans
The first day of the House's fiscal year 2022 budget debate
ended more than 13 hours after it began on Monday with a
unanimous vote to add more than $10.9 million in spending to
the $47.6 billion budget proposal for education, local aid,
social services and veterans programs.
The vote on the first bulk amendment of the week capped a
day that featured very little debate and long periods of
inactivity on the floor as members, many of them
participating remotely this week, took part in three
separate private Zoom meetings to discuss hundreds of
amendments that had been separated into categories. In
addition to the topics dealt with in the first bulk
amendment, House lawmakers have also met to discuss
amendments related to health and human services, elder
affairs, public safety and the judiciary.
The annual budget debate began with the traditional
discussion of revenue amendments, of which there were only
17. The House voted to eliminate the 2022 sunset date on the
controversial film tax credit, expand the conservation land
tax credit program from $2 million to $5 million and extend
the historic rehabilitation tax credit by five years through
2027.
Later in the evening, the first consolidated amendment -
Consolidated A - emerged for consideration dealing with
186 amendments across four categories. The consolidated
amendment included a number of earmarks and proposed to
spend an additional $10,938,568, including an additional
$600,000 for the operational budget of Department of
Children and Families, more than $8 million in new cash
assistance funding for the Emergency Aid to the Elderly,
Disabled and Children program ($99,499,794) and about $5
million less for Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent
Children ($271,561,880).
Rep. David Rogers, the chair of the Committee on Higher
Education, said the amendment boosted funding for the dual
enrollment program for high school students taking college
courses by $1.3 million, and Education Committee Chairwoman
Alice Peisch said the amendment created a new line item to
help districts hurt by shortfalls in federal aid to educate
the children of families living on military bases. The House
returns to action Tuesday at 11 a.m., and Rep. Kate Hogan,
who presided over the evening session, said roll calls are
expected to begin promptly.
State House News Service
House Session Summary - Tuesday, April 27, 2021
By Chris Lisinski
The House tacked tens of millions of dollars in spending
onto its $47.6 billion fiscal year 2022 budget during its
second day of debate on Tuesday, working mostly behind
closed doors -- or more accurately, in private Zoom meetings
-- to compile amendment bundles that can be addressed with
single votes. Tuesday's nearly 11-hour session featured only
a few stretches of activity on the House floor, mostly when
lawmakers spoke in favor of and then approved three
different consolidated amendments.
The first mega-amendment approved Tuesday,
Consolidated B, added $8.3 million to the budget's
spending on health and human services and elder affairs,
aimed in part at older residents who have been hit hardest
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Another package,
Consolidated C, brought $5.3 million in additional
spending on public safety and judicial matters, including
pay raises for sheriffs and for attorneys working with the
Committee on Public Counsel Services.
In its final budget action of the night, the House approved
an $11.1 million package of amendments,
Consolidated D, concerning public health, mental health
and disability services that was packed with earmarks for
local health initiatives.
Through two days of work, the House has now approved four
different consolidated amendment bundles and added a total
of about $35.7 million to the fiscal 2022 spending plan.
More than 550 amendments across categories including energy
and environmental affairs, housing, transportation and
economic development are still awaiting action. The House
will resume budget deliberations at 11 a.m. on Wednesday
with roll calls set to begin at noon.
https://malegislature.gov/Budget/FY2022/HouseDebate/FloorActions
State House News Service
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
House Amendment Targets Transportation Reform, Includes Pay
Raises
By Sam Doran
The House tacked $4.87 million more onto its fiscal 2022
budget bill Wednesday with a mega-amendment that also
includes pay raises and throws the brakes on a Baker
administration transportation reform that has already
progressed through the procurement phase.
The
consolidated amendment [E] would impose a two-year
moratorium on the Baker administration's planned
consolidation within the Human Services Transportation
System, which provides millions of rides annually to
low-income and disabled residents.
Transportation Committee Co-Chair William Straus said that
the planned overhaul would have "a detrimental impact on the
delivery of services in this program," and that the two-year
pause would give a task force - also created by the
amendment - "time to work on the kinds of legitimate and
real reforms in the delivery of this critical program."
The task force would include lawmakers and representatives
from regional transit authorities, the Department of
Transportation, and groups like The Arc of Massachusetts and
the Disability Law Center, and would face a Dec. 1, 2022
deadline to make its recommendations.
Top clerks in several state courts would receive pay bumps
under the amendment. State law currently sets several
clerks' salaries at 81.57 percent of the salary of their
department's chief justice, and the amendment raises that in
a number of instances to 90 percent.
Straus said the amendment also included "an important
request" from regional transit authorities to pause a grant
program by which their funding was distributed, and to
instead offer direct operating assistance. Straus said that
service demands, staffing demands, and "the complications of
operating [RTAs] during the pandemic" last fiscal year
resulted in funds reaching RTAs in "not as timely" a manner
as they needed.
Consolidated Amendment "E" also incorporated Rep. Tackey
Chan's proposed reorganization of the state Asian American
Commission into an Asian American and Pacific Islander
Commission, along with removal of two appointees to the
commission from the House and Senate minority leaders.
A new license plate for Medal of Liberty recipients would be
created under a section based on a Rep. Brad Jones
amendment, and the House also moved to statutorily require
that the MBTA name a new Green Line Extension station near
the Medford-Somerville border as the "Ball Square/South
Medford station."
As the third evening of budget week approaches, three large
amendment categories remain that are likely to be folded
into mega-amendments: labor and economic development,
housing, and energy and environmental affairs.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, April 29, 2021
Massachusetts House unanimously passes $47.7 billion budget
By Erin Tiernan
State representatives said their second pandemic-era
spending plan charts “a path toward economic recovery” after
they unanimously passed a $47.7 billion state budget in the
wee hours of Thursday morning, capping three marathon days
of debate.
“This budget meets the needs of our residents who have
endured an unprecedented level of health and economic
challenges over the past year. The House continues to
support the services and programs that have proven to be
essential for so many, while making targeted investments to
grow the Massachusetts economy,” Speaker Ronald Mariano said
in a statement.
The fiscal 2022 budget process remains on time — which is
notable considering lawmakers delayed passage of the current
year’s spending plan by months last year in an attempt to
get a full grasp on the economic damage wrought by the
coronavirus pandemic.
House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Aaron Michlewitz said it
was a feat made possible by “tireless work over the past few
months.”
The North End Democrat said FY 2022 budget “focuses on the
challenges our constituents face in the midst of this
difficult time.”
The budget passed Thursday was about $60 million fatter than
the one budget writers proposed last week. Despite boosting
spending by about $1.8 billion over the current year, it
includes no new taxes and bumps up spending to some social
services programs prioritized by lawmakers amid the
coronavirus pandemic.
The spending plan commits to fully funding the first year of
a six-year pay-out of the Student Opportunity Act. The
education funding reform bill commits to injecting an extra
$1.5 billion in public schools by 2027.
Members waded through more than 1,157 amendments, packaging
the majority of proposals into mega-amendments following
behind-closed-doors debate reminiscent of the former Speaker
Robert DeLeo’s reign.
Seven consolidated amendments were ultimately adopted, the
largest among them an $11.9 million labor and economic
development package.
Members separately approved $7.1 [million] in mostly local
spending.
“I really do appreciate the patience of the member as we
ground our way through this — it was a difficult process
doing this remotely,” Mariano said after the roll was
called.
Offering a “heartfelt thanks” to members for their patience
after the final vote came in just after the clock struck
2:30 a.m. on Thursday, the Quincy Democrat closed the books
on his first state budget process as speaker.
The process now moves to the Senate where members are
already predicting a showdown over a controversial film tax
credit that costs taxpayers upward of $80 million per year.
The two chambers will then reconcile any differences before
the budget moves to Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk sometime in
June.
State House News Service
Monday, April 26, 2021
Uneven Growth Creates Mass. Redistricting Challenge
Census: Mass. Population Grew 7.4 Percent in Last Decade
By Matt Murphy
Massachusetts grew by enough people over the past decade to
keep all nine U.S. House seats as the state's population
climbed to more than 7 million over the past decade, but
Secretary of State William Galvin said Monday that the
process of redrawing Congressional districts still will be
challenging.
The U.S. Census Bureau released state population totals and
Congressional apportionment data on Monday, giving state
officials an early glimpse of what might be in store this
year as they wait for more specific community-level counts
later in the summer. The population totals govern not just
how many seats in Congress a state has, but also how
trillions of dollars in federal formula funding gets
allocated.
The 2020 Census effort, which was rife with political and
pandemic challenges, counted 7,029,917 people living in
Massachusetts, a 7.4 percent increase over the past decade
that outpaced the 4.1 percent average in the Northeast and
equaled the growth rate of the country as a whole.
The state may have avoided a fate similar to 10 years ago
when it lost a seat, but the growth likely means that
western Massachusetts districts represented by U.S. Rep
Richard Neal and U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern may need to be
expanded to grab more population, while the footprint of
eastern districts close to Boston may need to shrink or
shift west, Galvin said.
That task will fall to Assistant House Majority Michael
Moran and Senate President Pro Tempore William Brownsberger,
who are leading the redistricting effort this year as chairs
of the Special Committee on Redistricting.
The committee is planning a minimum of 10 hearings between
now and August, including events in each of the nine
districts, to solicit input, and additional hearings will be
held after maps are released.
U.S. Census officials have said the precinct level data will
be given to states no later than Sept. 30, creating a time
crunch for many states to take that data and draw maps
before the end of the year. The Democrats will be under
pressure to draw the districts in a manner that doesn't
necessarily protect incumbents, but keeps communities whole
and doesn't dilute minority voices.
The state added 482,288 people since the decennial count in
2010, ensuring that its delegation to the House will remain
the same size while six southern and western states added
seats and seven other states, including New York, lost
representation in Congress.
"Today is good news for Massachusetts. Ten years ago we lost
a seat in Congress and we lost the influence it provided.
Today we know that we will not lose a seat and we will not
lose an electoral vote," Galvin said after the data was
released.
Massachusetts has not added a Congressional seat in over 110
years. The state had 16 members of Congress in 1910 and has
either held steady or lost seats every decade as more and
more of the House's 435 seats went to southern and western
states. The last time the size of the delegation did not
change was in 2000 when the state controlled 10 seats.
Galvin fought over the past year to make sure the U.S.
Census bureau did everything it could to capture the state's
student and immigrant populations, and he said the count
released Monday exceeded his estimates. But the secretary
said it's likely that district boundaries will have to be
redrawn to reflect shifts in population.
The size of Congressional districts nationwide is growing by
about 50,000 people to an average of 761,169, but in
Massachusetts each district will need to have 781,497,
according to Census officials, which is up from 728,849
after 2010.
The UMass Donahue Institute estimates that U.S. Rep. Stephen
Lynch's district based in Boston and the coastal cities and
towns south of the city may have as many as 40,000 more
people than it needs, while Neal's district could be nearly
45,000 people short. Without gerrymandering, there's no easy
way to connect populations from Boston and Springfield.
"This is going to be a very challenging process to try to
make sure that each of the nine districts is equally
populated," Galvin said.
While the rate of growth in Massachusetts between 2010 and
2020 far outpaced the 3.1 percent growth recorded in the
previous decade, Acting U.S. Census Bureau Director Ron
Jarmin said the U.S. population grew to 331,449,281, a 7.4
percent rate increase over 2010 that was the second slowest
in recorded history behind only the 1930s.
Some states that were expected to lose seats, like Rhode
Island, did not, while others known to be growing rapidly
did not see their representation increase as predicted.
Census officials expressed confidence in the data, despite
having to overcome a nationwide pandemic, civil unrest,
wildfires and other disruptions that challenged the bureau's
ability to count people online and by going door-to-door.
"We advertised on pizza boxes instead of during basketball
games," Jarmin said.
The South grew the fastest over the last decade (10.2
percent) followed by the West (9.2 percent), the Northeast
(4.1 percent) and the Midwest (3.1 percent).
Utah was fastest growing state, while three states - West
Virginia, Mississippi and Illinois - lost population,
officials said. Massachusetts is now the 15th largest state
in the country (down from 14th) and is still the fifth
densest state, with 901.2 people per square mile, and the
21st fastest growing state.
In total, seven Congressional seats will shift between 13
states based on the 2020 population count. Six states -
Texas (2), Colorado, Montana, Florida, North Carolina and
Oregon - will gain seats, while seven states - California,
Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West
Virginia - will lose seats. New York was 89 people short of
keeping its 27 seats in the House, Census officials said.
Massachusetts did not crack the top 10 of states next in
line to gain a seat, but recent redistricting efforts have
demonstrated that it doesn't take gaining or losing a seat
to cause disruptions in the political status quo.
In 2011, former U.S. Rep. John Olver opted to retire rather
than have his western Massachusetts district redrawn to
include another member of the delegation. U.S. Rep. Barney
Frank didn't face the prospect of running against one of his
colleagues, but he too opted to retire rather than campaign
in a newly configured district that no longer included New
Bedford.
And U.S. Rep. William Keating, who represents the Cape and
southeastern Massachusetts, moved his full-time residence
from Quincy to Bourne in order to avoid a showdown with
Lynch.
Members of the current delegation similarly could see their
districts reshaped to include new communities, and depending
on where the state's population growth occurred they could
even wind up drawn into the same district as a colleague.
Galvin said it will be important for Moran, who also helped
lead the 2011 redistricting effort, and Brownsberger to
retain the 7th District's majority-minority status.
State House News Service
Friday, April 30, 2021
Advances - Week of May 2, 2021
As Massachusetts residents and employers try to envision the
logistics of post-pandemic life, state lawmakers continue to
operate out of a mostly closed capitol building but have
rediscovered some of their rhythm ...
On schedule, the Senate will soon be in receipt of an
amended $47.7 billion fiscal 2022 House budget, and the
Senate appears likely to meet its traditional goal of
passing its budget before Memorial Day weekend ...
Lawmakers are in a scramble to agree on legislation to build
a new $400 million Holyoke Soldiers' Home, but must settle
major differences between their proposals after the Senate
bulked up its bill this week with amendments and significant
changes. The Holyoke Home bills (H 3701 / S 2442) are likely
headed to a six-member conference committee next week ...
While COVID-19 is still circulating, talk about when the
state of emergency might end filtered into the public
discourse this week after Gov. Charlie Baker outlined the
final steps toward a full reopening. That discussion comes
as lawmakers and Baker still haven't been able to agree on a
paid COVID leave program that was supposed to be an
emergency measure but has disappeared into the legislative
abyss ...
Legislators charged with redrawing Congressional and
legislative district boundaries to account for significant
but uneven population growth over the past decade hold their
first field hearing next week in the district of Assistant
Speaker Katherine Clark of Melrose. The Redistricting
Committee is co-chaired by Sen. Will Brownsberger and Rep.
Michael Moran ...
Economic activity is surging, based on an assortment of
metrics, and state tax collections continue to run well
ahead of budget benchmarks, with a telling report on April
receipts due out next week ...
The combination of strong tax collections, a rebounding
economy and an historic infusion of federal funds, with the
potential for much more based on President Joe Biden's
ambitious tax-and-spend plans, means Beacon Hill is not at a
loss for revenue to spend and instead challenged mostly by
how quickly to dish it out and where to spend it. The
revenue glut also comes at an interesting time politically
for the Legislature, which must convene a Constitutional
Convention in May when they could decide whether to send to
the 2022 statewide ballot an amendment adding a 4 percent
surtax on household income above $1 million.
It has been estimated that the new wealth tax could add $2
billion a year to the state's revenue kitty. Under the
amendment, revenue from the tax increase must only be spent
on education and transportation, two areas that are a major
focus of Biden's already approved American Rescue Act, and
his pending multi-trillion-dollar bills to invest in
infrastructure and domestic programs. The amendment,
together with Biden's plans to raise taxes on the wealthy
and corporations, represent a one-two punch to both raise
money for big spending plans with competitiveness
implications and to address growing income inequality in the
United States ...
May is also scheduled to bring critical guidance from the
U.S. Treasury on permissible spending under the American
Rescue Act, which will inform decision-making at the state
and municipal government levels ...
In addition to the fiscal 2022 budget, other things on the
near-term to-do lists of legislative leaders: decide whether
to make permanent mail-in and other voting reforms, pass a
bill appropriating Rescue Act funds that were intended to
provide a jolt to economies and hard-hit industries and
people; decide on an permanent governance and management
structure for the MBTA, whose board expires soon. Lawmakers
next week also plan to dive into what they're describing as
the "emerging threat" of cocaine and methamphetamine use in
Massachusetts, holding an oversight hearing to hear from
experts on the topic....
Wednesday, May 5, 2021
RETROFITTING HOMES LEGISLATIVE BRIEFING: Mass Renews
Alliance hosts a legislative briefing to discuss legislation
(S 2226 / H 3365) that would call for retrofitting 1 million
Massachusetts homes over a 10-year period with greener
heating and electrical systems, prioritizing low-income
households and communities of color. Register (Wednesday, 10
a.m.) ...
APRIL REVENUES: Department of Revenue is expected to
announce total tax collections for the month of April,
typically the most significant month for tax revenues. When
it last updated its expectations in January, DOR was
projecting that it would collect $3.48 billion from
taxpayers in April but it has since moved the tax filing
deadline to May 17 to comport with the federal deadline,
meaning that some of what had been expected in April is
likely to bleed into May.
Nine months through fiscal year 2021, Massachusetts state
government has collected $22.588 billion in taxes from
people and businesses, which is $1.524 billion or 7.2
percent more than it did during the same nine mostly
pre-pandemic months of fiscal year 2020. For the last three
months, actual tax collections have blown DOR's monthly
benchmarks out of the water. The last month Massachusetts
saw a year-over-year decline in tax collections was
September. (Wednesday)
The Attleboro Sun Chronicle
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
How Prop. 2½ leads to voter apathy
By Steve Schoonveld
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of Sun Chroncile columnist
Bill Gouveia and his weekly contribution to the conversation
on local governments.
Indeed, I enjoyed his recent piece on Proposition 2½ (“The
Story Behind Prop. 2½,” City & Town, April 19), however, I
do disagree and offer the following thoughts and points.
Since Prop. 2½ was adopted, inflation has averaged less than
2% annually. This is also true of the inflation component
that makes up the wage base.
Yes, inflation has wavered from time to time but that is one
reason why we pay for town services together.
One purpose for government is to share the expenses of
services so that the yearly volatility of costs are not
absorbed by residents and businesses. Therefore Prop. 2½ has
done its job on both counts.
A second reason for Prop. 2½ is to cap otherwise unlimited
spending growth. Government struggles with limiting its
spending. Very few towns are not taxing to the limit today
or even before COVID.
Similar to how a speed limiter can be used to limit the top
speed of a vehicle with an untrustworthy driver, today’s
municipal government needs to be restrained or residents
will face out of control spending efforts. To put the sole
decision of exceeding spending caps in the hands of a town
council, a select board or a mayor would be tragic for
taxpayers.
I will concede there are expenses — such as unfunded state
and federal mandates — that are out of the hands of local
town governments. Such mandates are inappropriate for any
upper-level branch of government to impose without a remedy
for the increased expense.
Additionally, while most infrastructure improvements within
the town can be planned and properly budgeted for, there are
occasionally unforeseen expenses that must be met.
But these are the exception and, by themselves, not a reason
to throw out a reasonable spending restraint such as Prop.
2.5.
In particular, select boards are generally not good at
strong financial management.
For whatever reason, perhaps the zeal to be re-elected or
lacking the necessary financial skill set, select boards
tend to think near-term and be reactive rather than think
strategically and long-term.
In Mansfield, the support of a strong Finance Committee has
been a blessing to taxpayers over many decades.
Without their zeal for fiscal prudence and holding true to
established financial goals, both the taxpayer and town
government we would not have been prepared for the past and
coming year.
So how does a municipality manage under Prop. 2½? Clearly a
strong commitment to financial planning and economic
development is key.
Making strong use of debt, encouraging new growth that does
not come with excessive new expense and having an approach
that is based on what the town needs and which type of new
business and residential growth is most productive. For
example, businesses and properties with high turnover are
not good for the tax base. We often hear, “Not in my back
yard” (NIMBY) but we should instead demand NOMTR (“Not on my
tax rolls”).
While there are pros and cons of the town meeting form of
government, one reason to end Prop. 2½ would be to encourage
resident participation in town meetings and elections.
The upper bound of the law gives comfort to the taxpayer,
allowing them to feel less inclined to participate in their
local government.
Fear of out of control spending may be the incentive
necessary to turn 2% town meeting attendance into 50%
attendance. Even if this were so, there would still be
little immediate remedy for poor financial management by a
town council or select board. You can’t easily change the
old and ineffective guard quickly. It takes years.
Prop. 2½ has indeed kept up with inflation and gives
taxpayers comfort that their money is being appropriately
used, probably, but also has the residual of increased
apathy.
— The writer is a member of
the Mansfield Select Board. The views expressed above are
his own and not necessarily those of the board.
Thursday, April 1, 2021
The 2021 Kentucky legislative session is over. Here's our
list of winners and losers
By Morgan Watkins and Joe Sonka
Louisville Courier Journal
Just like that, another annual session of the Kentucky
General Assembly is over — and as the dust settled, some
folks walked away with big victories, while others had to
watch their priorities fall short of the finish line.
Here's a look at some winners and losers of the 2021
legislative session.
It might be surprising to see Gov. Andy Beshear listed here
twice, as both a winner and a loser, but you'll see why we
put him in both categories.
Winner: Secretary of State Michael Adams
Adams worked hard to get lawmakers to pass House Bill 574, a
big update to Kentucky's election system that expands voter
access by (among other things) adopting in-person early
voting and also adds new security rules.
Success wasn't assured, given the partisan battles
Republicans and Democrats are waging over voting rights
across the country, but HB 574 passed with broad bipartisan
support.
"I will tell you, I'm more proud of this than I've ever been
of anything," Adams told The Courier Journal.
Winner: Sen. Mitch McConnell
McConnell scored a victory when the legislature approved a
plan he supports that changes how Kentucky handles U.S.
Senate vacancies and requires the governor to appoint
someone of the same party as the departing senator.
In fact, the 79-year-old statesman said changing the
commonwealth's vacancy rules was his idea. Republican
lawmakers backed him up and easily overrode a veto Beshear
issued, thus ensuring the legislation's success.
Winner: Senate President Robert Stivers
Stivers introduced four high-profile bills this year that
tackled controversial issues, and the legislature ended up
passing all of them before the session ended Tuesday mere
minutes before midnight.
The Manchester Republican's successful proposals were:
• Senate Bill 4, which restricts how and when police can use
no-knock search and arrest warrants in the wake of Breonna
Taylor's death;
• The McConnell-backed changes to Kentucky's Senate vacancy
rules;
• Senate Bill 5, which gives liability protection to
businesses and other employers as long as they reasonably
tried to comply with the state's COVID-19 regulations
(although Beshear has the power to veto SB 5);
• A bipartisan plan he helped craft that sets up a tax
increment financing district in west Louisville, with the
goal of spurring reinvestment there while also protecting
residents from being forced out by gentrification.
Winner: Anti-abortion advocates
Anti-abortion advocates usually win every year in the
Kentucky legislature, and 2021 didn't buck that trend. They
got an early win when GOP lawmakers passed a bill that gives
Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron the power to
independently regulate and sanction clinics that provide
abortions.
They got something to celebrate on the last day of the
session, too, when lawmakers approved a plan to put a
proposed constitutional amendment that basically says
there's no right to an abortion in Kentucky on the ballot
next year. Voters will decide the amendment's fate in
November 2022.
Winner: Gov. Andy Beshear
Beshear and the Republican-run legislature have an often
adversarial relationship, but that doesn't mean he didn't
have any success. He scored a victory at the very end of the
session, when lawmakers agreed to appropriate more than $1
billion in federal funds from the American Rescue Plan Act.
Beshear negotiated for weeks with GOP leaders on how to use
that money, and in the end the legislature approved a
spending plan that incorporated several recommendations he
made (although it didn't adopt all his ideas).
Winner: The horse racing industry
Kentucky horse racing tracks and breeders hit the literal
jackpot early in the session with the passage of Senate Bill
120, which legalizes their historical horse racing machines
that closely resemble casino slots — and have served as the
industry’s cash cow for the past decade before a Kentucky
Supreme Court order nixed them last year.
The legislative fix will keep the millions of dollars
flowing into their coffers and purses and stave off job
losses, with their massive lobbying spending that led all
other groups in Frankfort appearing like a downright
bargain.
Winner: School-choice advocates
An effort to greenlight scholarship tax credits in Kentucky
floundered for years but finally cleared the legislature
this time around, in a big win for school-choice advocates.
That legislation, House Bill 563, also lets state dollars
follow students who go to public schools outside their
district.
When HB 563 passed, EdChoice KY President Charles Leis
declared: "After years of advocating for common sense
school-choice programs, Kentucky families will soon have
more education options than ever before..."
Winner: Film industry and Seelbach Hotel
The state revenue bill handed $75 million of refundable tax
credits to film companies working in Kentucky, plus $100
million in tax breaks related to historic preservation
projects.
Of the latter, a provision was carved out specifically for a
proposed renovation and expansion of Louisville’s Seelbach
Hotel — whose owners had spent thousands of dollars lobbying
for the tax break and contributing to the campaigns of key
GOP leaders since last year.
Loser: Louisville's civilian review board
The city recently established a civilian review board for
police oversight, but an attempt to pass a bill that would
give that group subpoena power failed.
Mayor Greg Fischer was "sorely disappointed" the bill was
nixed, saying: "Providing our new Civilian Review and
Accountability Board with subpoena power was my No. 1
priority for this legislative session, because of its
potential in enhancing transparency in cases of alleged
police misconduct."
Loser: Gov. Andy Beshear
Beshear was buffeted by a parade of Republican bills that
restrict his executive authority. When he overruled such
proposals, the GOP supermajorities in the state Senate and
House of Representatives easily overrode his vetoes.
This ended up being a victory for some of Kentucky's
Republican constitutional officers, including state
Treasurer Allison Ball and Agriculture Commissioner Ryan
Quarles, because the legislature took certain powers away
from the governor and gave it to them instead.
GOP sprints through 2 dozen overrides of Gov. Andy Beshear's
vetoes (March 30)
Loser: Advocates for police reform
Senate Bill 4, which restricted no-knock warrants, generally
was supported by people who have called for police reforms
and accountability. But it did not go nearly as far as the "Breonna's
Law" bill Democratic Rep. Attica Scott introduced, which
would have banned no-knock warrants outright.
The failure to secure subpoena powers for Louisville's
civilian review board was another disappointment for
advocates who are raising concerns about police brutality.
And Democratic lawmakers offered several police-reform
proposals this year that ultimately went nowhere.
There was a silver lining for police reform advocates,
though. A super-controversial bill that would've made it a
crime to insult a police officer ultimately failed to pass
in the General Assembly.
Loser: Open records advocates
The General Assembly passed legislation that reduces public
access to certain information, despite pushback from the
Kentucky Press Association and other advocates for open
government.
One bill essentially lets the legislature be the final
arbiter of whether to release legislative records and also
limits the ability of people outside Kentucky to file open
records requests within the commonwealth. Another restricts
the public release of certain personal information about
police, judges and prosecutors, although Beshear potentially
could veto that one.
Loser: Public schools
While school-choice fans celebrated HB 563's passage,
proponents of public education warned the legislation could
siphon much-needed money away from Kentucky's cash-strapped
public schools.
There was a last-minute bright spot for public schools that
popped up on the final day of the session, though: The
legislature followed through on a plan to devote $140
million in state funding to cover full-day kindergarten.
Loser: Road contractors
Yet another session came and went with legislation to
increase the state’s gas tax and imposed a new fee on
electric and hybrid vehicles running out of gas.
While road contractors are missing out on potential business
from the state’s depleted road fund, so, too, are the local
governments and Kentucky Chamber of Commerce members who
have advocated for the tax legislation for years, as
Kentucky’s road infrastructure continues to crumble.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-general-assembly/2021/04/01/winners-and-losers-of-kentuckys-2021-legislative-session/4820237001/
|
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
|
