 |
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 24, 2021
State Funds Skyrocket
By Billions But No Relief For Businesses
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
A supplemental budget filed by Gov. Charlie Baker offers a
glimpse at the eye-popping cost of the coronavirus pandemic
in Massachusetts.
Coronavirus spending makes up 70% of the $273 million
supplemental spending plan for the current fiscal year filed
on Tuesday.
“These recommendations include $191 million to authorize
spending certain federal funds made available through COVID-related
federal legislation, a $0 net cost to the Commonwealth,” the
governor wrote in a Tuesday memo to lawmakers.
The federal monies to be spent in Baker’s 69-page spending
proposal come from Donald Trump-era relief bills that
ushered roughly $70 billion in federal aid into the
state[s].
State Rep. Dan Hunt, D-Dorchester, who heads the House
Committee on Federal Stimulus and Census Oversight, said he
expects collaboration between the Legislature and the Baker
administration on how the state will spend the $5.3 billion
awarded to Massachusetts from President Biden’s American
Rescue plan.
Hunt and his team are “pouring through” the 700-page bill
and its accompanying 160 pages of guidance, the Dorchester
Democrat said.
“It seems like we are going to have some broad latitude to
spend this once-in-a-generation funding,” Hunt said.
Hunt’s committee was created this session by first-term
House Speaker Ronald Mariano, who has signaled his desire
for the Legislature to take a greater oversight role in the
spending of billions of relief dollars flowing into the
state.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Eye-popping cost of coronavirus
pandemic laid bare in supplemental budget
The House approved a proposal Tuesday that aims to relieve
employers this spring from major unexpected unemployment
system costs, while punting the decision on whether to
deploy one-time federal funds to address a benefits system
that sagged under the weight of pandemic unemployment.
In a move that business groups described as a solid first
step, representatives voted 157-0 to shuffle the
distribution of unemployment claims costs so that they can
be covered over two decades of borrowing and so businesses
will not be in line for huge bills in the short term....
The legislation (H 3702) addressing a spike in solvency rate
assessments on businesses aims to achieve the same goal as
an unemployment system stabilization bill Baker signed on
April 1, before it became apparent that the original pass
failed to fully prevent business cost spikes tied to
unprecedented pandemic job losses....
Many businesses were blindsided when they opened their
first-quarter unemployment contribution bills and found the
solvency assessment rate had jumped from 0.58 percent in
2020 to 9.23 percent in 2021, raising costs in many cases by
hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Under the legislation approved Tuesday, the state would
shift all COVID-related unemployment claims from the
solvency fund into a new COVID claims fund and the solvency
fund would revert to its original function. Lawmakers
already authorized $7 billion in bonding over 20 years as
part of the original unemployment stabilization bill Baker
signed, so the state would borrow to cover the newly created
account.
Employers, who fund the state's jobless aid system, will
still be on the hook in the long term, and a COVID-related
assessment on businesses will kick into effect for 2021 and
2022....
Business leaders and some lawmakers have pushed to use some
of the billions of dollars Massachusetts will receive from
the American Rescue Plan to replenish the unemployment
insurance trust fund after a historic spike in job losses
during last year's mandatory economic shutdowns.
States are empowered to use the relief money to restore
unemployment funds under federal guidance, and some have
already done so, but -- to the chagrin of several business
leaders -- the House opted not to pursue that option in its
legislation Tuesday....
Industry groups offered mixed reviews of the bill, praising
the relief it will bring in the coming weeks while calling
for additional action to soften the burden businesses will
need to carry over the next two decades.
"You could characterize this as a short-term solution. Some
might characterize it as a long-term solution, but I think
those that do that are not looking at the big picture,"
Retailers Association of Massachusetts President Jon Hurst
told the News Service. "If anybody thinks this is the only
solution, that would not be acceptable in employers' minds."
Hurst contested Cutler's description that the fix uses "our
own resources," arguing that the costs over the next 20
years will still fall to current and future employers "for
claims that were not their fault," brought on by
government-ordered capacity limits and business closures. He
urged Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill leaders to work together
and direct taxpayer dollars to offset the costs, whether by
using ARPA funding or a new package aimed specifically at
unemployment trust funds.
"I'm not saying the entire $4.5 billion ARPA money or the
entire trust fund deficit must be paid by state and federal
government or socialized, or that employers can't pick up
part of the tab, but it would be an absolute failure and we
would be an outlier among other states if we expected
employers to pay the entire bill for the COVID crisis,"
Hurst said.
Christopher Carlozzi, state director for the National
Federation of Independent Businesses, said the plan unveiled
Tuesday is "another step towards providing employers with
immediate UI tax relief."
"We are thankful that it will help many employers avoid
those astronomically high first quarter bills, however a
long term solution will still be necessary," he said in a
statement, adding that many job losses were a result of
COVID restrictions. "The state must be required to use some
of the billions in federal aid to help offset costs for
business owners who, under this proposal, are still solely
responsible for refilling the unemployment trust. Other
states used federal CARES Act and ARPA money to refill
depleted unemployment funds, Massachusetts should help
struggling businesses by following their example."
State House News Service
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
House Plan Prevents Spike in Biz
Unemployment Costs
High Claims Costs Will Be Spread Over 20 Years
House 157-0, Senate 40-0, approved and sent to Gov. Baker a
bill that would provide qualified workers with up to five
days of paid leave for COVID-related emergencies including
workers who are sick with the virus, under a quarantine
order, recovering from receiving a vaccine or caring for a
family member ill with the virus.
The measure is also designed to relieve employers this
spring from expensive unexpected unemployment system costs.
Many businesses were shocked when they saw their
first-quarter unemployment contribution bills and found the
solvency assessment rate had jumped from 0.58 percent in
2020 to 9.23 percent in 2021, raising costs in many cases by
hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Under the proposal, the state would shift all COVID-related
unemployment claims from the solvency fund into a new COVID
claims fund and the solvency fund would revert to its
original function. Employers, who fund the state's jobless
aid system, will still be on the hook in the long term, and
a COVID-related assessment on businesses will kick into
effect for 2021 and 2022....
“The unemployment benefits crisis was directly caused by
Gov. Baker’s shutdown of the state’s economy and the
Legislature’s failure to act,” said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“The federal government provided relief with its American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), but the House chose not to use those
funds to mitigate the burden the state imposed on employers.
It is unconscionable for the state to further abuse
devastated businesses when federal funds have been made
available to alleviate that pain.”
“This proposal is a good step to help provide employers
immediate unemployment insurance tax relief, but it is not a
long-term solution,” said National Federation of Independent
Business's (NFIB) Massachusetts State Director Christopher
Carlozzi. “The state forced businesses to close their doors
and rollback operations resulting in widespread layoffs.
Because of this, employers alone should not be left to
shoulder the entire UI tax burden and policymakers must use
some of the billions of dollars in federal aid to help
replenish the UI trust fund like so many other states have
done.”
“This legislation is an important stopgap step to prevent up
to 1,600 percent immediate tax increases for Massachusetts
employers,” said Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers
Association of Massachusetts. “It will amortize the
multi-billion-dollar COVID-related claims over 20 years,
spreading out, but not eliminating the pain. Still there
needs to be a shared responsibility with government to cover
some of the UI Trust Fund debt. The orders, restrictions,
messaging, emergency benefits and fraudulent claims were
related to government actions, not that of employers. So
there still needs to be a determination on how much of the
federal relief dollars under either the CARES Act or ARPA
will be the government’s responsibility for the debt of
approximately $4 billion. Massachusetts will be receiving
$4.5 billion under the ARPA. Most other states have used
federal COVID relief dollars to reduce the overall UI tax
hit for their employers, and Massachusetts must support
their small businesses and employers in a similar way.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
May 17-21, 2021
By Bob Katzen
COVID-19 Emergency Sick Leave And
Unemployment Insurance Charges (H 3771)
Gov. Baker announced that effective June 15, 2021, the work
search requirements will be reinstated for all regular
Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants. Massachusetts
temporarily suspended these requirements in March 2020 when
the pandemic began.
Under the reinstated regulations, claimants must attest each
week that they are making at least three work-search
activities and provide proof of that activity to the
Department of Unemployment Assistance, if requested, in
order to maintain eligibility for UI benefits. Examples of
valid work-search activities include completing a job
application in person or online with employers who
reasonably may be expected to have an opening for suitable
work; registering for work and reemployment services with a
local Mass Hire Career Center; and using other job search
activities, such as reviewing job listings on the internet,
newspapers or professional journals, contacting professional
associations and networking with colleagues or friends.
“This is very good news for everyone,” said Paul Craney
executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.
“Businesses, workers and customers all need to get back to
normal and this is a good first step toward that. Businesses
are having a hard time hiring workers because the
unemployment benefits are so generous. Customers cannot
enjoy their favorite businesses because these businesses are
dealing with a shortage of workers.”
[SUBMITTED BY REQUEST OF BEACON HILL ROLL CALL BUT NOT
PUBLISHED]:
"'As of April 2021, there were nearly 200,000 job-postings
across Massachusetts, the highest that figure has ever been
in history' tells it all," said Chip Ford, executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "The
state's multi-billion dollar unemployment benefits crisis
has a solution: Get everyone back to work. This 'work search
requirement’ is a good start, if belated. Get out of the way
and let the economy fully reopen, recover, and flourish,
return us to those pre-pandemic employment highs."
Beacon Hill Roll Call
May 17-21, 2021
By Bob Katzen
Unemployed Claimants Must Look For Work
Massachusetts Teachers Association Vice President Max Page
opened up his testimony before the Higher Education
Committee Tuesday by sharing his screen with lawmakers,
displaying a photo of the fine arts center at UMass
Amherst....
Page was one of several speakers to make the case to the
committee that graduating without debt was once the norm for
public college and university graduates and to ask the
legislators to return to a model where students shouldered
less of the cost burden.
"We're not inventing the utopian world of the future," he
said. "We're simply going back to the future, in a way.
We're trying to reclaim what we had." ...
Bills before the committee propose various approaches to
helping students pay for college, including MTA-backed bills
that would create a free-college grant program and that
would steer $500 million in additional state dollars into
public higher education over five years.
Referred to by its supporters as the Cherish Act, the $500
million bill would also freeze tuition and fees at public
colleges and universities through fiscal 2026. It aims to
bring per-student state funding for public higher education
back to its 2001 level....
[Rep. Natalie Higgins] said the question she usually gets
about the bill is how to pay for it, and pointed to another
bill on the committee's docket for the day -- Sen. Adam
Gomez's proposal (S 836) to impose a 2.5 percent excise tax
on private higher education institutions with endowments
over $1 billion. The revenue collected would be deposited
into a new trust fund "used exclusively for the purposes of
subsidizing the cost of higher education, early education
and child care for lower-income and middle-class residents
of the commonwealth."
A House version of that bill (H 2931), which Higgins filed,
is before the Revenue Committee.
"There are 11 private higher ed institutions that have
endowments over a billion dollars," she said. "If we just
taxed above a billion dollars at two-and-a-half percent --
really just some of that interest that they're making -- we
would raise $1.6 billion a year, not only for higher ed but
also for early ed."
Higgins said half of that $1.6 billion could "wipe out
tuition and fees across all 29 public colleges and
universities in the commonwealth."
Rob McCarron, the senior vice president and general counsel
for the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
in Massachusetts, spoke in opposition to the endowment tax
plan.
He said it "would target the very institutions that have
stepped up in such a big way to help the state respond to
the COVID-19 pandemic," referencing efforts across higher
education to pivot to remote learning, donate personal
protective equipment, repurpose dorms to house first
responders and create COVID-19 testing programs.
"Endowments and private philanthropy are essential to
colleges and universities," McCarron said. "It is what
allows them to maintain excellence in academic programs and
research."
He said a "significant" portion of each endowment is
restricted to purposes -- like specific research or academic
programs -- designated by its donors, and that colleges and
universities are legally obligated by those donor
restrictions. The tax would "erode donor confidence," make
fundraising more difficult, and "weaken the competitiveness"
of the state's higher education sector, McCarron said.
State House News Service
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Higher Ed Funding Bill Now Backed by At Least
90 Lawmakers
Movement to Shift College Cost Burden Grows
Massachusetts is getting so much money from the federal
government with unique restrictions on how it is to be spent
over the next several years that the Legislature should
consider establishing a "separate para-budget process" for
American Rescue Plan Act money, an analyst told a House
committee Friday.
Between roughly $5.3 billion in state fiscal relief, another
nearly $3.4 billion for local governments and other funding,
the American Rescue Plan Act is poised to funnel more than
$13 billion to the Bay State.
Generally speaking, the funds must be committed by the end
of 2024 and spent by the end of 2026. That presents the
state with some opportunities and challenges, Evan Horowitz,
executive director of the Center for State Policy Analysis
at Tufts University, said....
Horowitz suggested, the Legislature could benefit from
putting ARPA spending decisions on their own annual or
semi-annual cycle and establishing interim spending targets
as the state works through what he called a "seismic fiscal
event" that will involve more money than previous stimulus
programs and spending guidelines that are far more flexible
than those for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009.
"The timeframes are different. The players are different in
terms of who's coordinating the spending of money across
different levels. The fungibility questions vary across
timeframes," he said. Horowitz added, "We do often separate
capital budgets from spending budgets, in general. And this
isn't exactly capital spending, but it has the one-time
structure that makes it right for a different kind of
thought process for spending decisions and budgeting
considerations."
Rep. John Barrett, the committee vice chair, liked the idea
and told Horowtiz he thought it was "practical." ...
Friday's hearing also featured a presentation from Doug
Howgate, the executive vice president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, who detailed for lawmakers many of the
do's and don'ts spelled out in the U.S. Treasury's recent
guidelines on allowable uses of the latest round of federal
relief funds.
He highlighted the fact that for some policy areas --
specifically housing, early education and economic supports
-- Massachusetts will have three possible sources of
funding: dedicated ARPA money, flexible ARPA money and the
money that is usually appropriated through the state budget.
"How you coordinate those things and make sure it's part of
a cohesive plan to maximize the benefit of those resources,
that's going to be a challenge that really needs a
thoughtful approach starting now about how we marry these
fiscal recovery funds with the state budget with other
resources," Howgate said....
Howgate also explained Friday that the state chunk of
discretionary funding is now $5.3 billion, greater than the
initial estimates of about $4.5 billion. He said
Massachusetts is one of 21 states that will get its ARPA
allocation as a lump sum -- other states will get 50 percent
now and the remainder after one year....
Chairman Rep. Dan Hunt said Friday . . . "But as far where,
mechanically, things will go and how they will go, that's
going to be a conversation among leadership. So the speaker
and the Senate president and the governor are going to have
to get together and figure out a piece of legislation that
will identify whether we do this in a short-term period,
whether we identify priorities on the front end or lay out a
plan for the five years. That's going to be a conversation
that the Gang of Three has going forward." ...
In April, House Speaker Ron Mariano said lawmakers may deal
with ARPA spending in June, after the annual state budget
has been sent to a conference committee.
State House News Service
Friday, May 21, 2021
Fed Funds Infusion Creating Unique
Multi-Year Challenge
Lawmakers Await First ARPA Proposal from Gov. Baker
Ironic, incongruous, inconceivable, or all of the above? The
Massachusetts Department of Revenue recently announced that
April collections were $385 million ahead of estimates. That
should come as no surprise because collections outpaced
projections by hundreds of millions of dollars each month
this year.
In a great irony, on the same day that the DOR announced
that April revenues put Massachusetts $3.4 billion ahead of
this time last year, a union-backed lobbying group, Raise Up
Massachusetts, kicked off a campaign to raise taxes by $2
billion annually.
Proponents of the self-styled Fair Share Amendment —
commonly called the millionaires tax, which was originally
proposed seven years ago — assert that more tax dollars are
needed to cover additional state spending. But state budgets
have long been rising at twice the rate of inflation, and in
addition to spending increases, excess revenues have also
swelled the critical rainy day fund to record levels.
It’s fair to call the claim that we need to raise more, even
when we haven’t come close to spending what we have,
incongruous.
What makes the play by the insatiable tax-and-spenders more
inconceivable is that the state’s already overflowing
coffers will soon receive billions from the federal
government to make up for coronavirus pandemic-related
budget gaps that never materialized, even in the face of
statewide business shutdowns. The Commonwealth has already
received billions of dollars from the federal government to
“weather the storm,” a storm that has actually resulted in
deposits into the rainy day fund.
State policy makers, anticipating the arrival of $4.5
billion in federal stimulus, are correctly asking what
should be done next. Even in the face of a state budget that
is overflowing with cash and will probably benefit from an
economy that appears ready to bust out and generate
surpluses as it did pre-pandemic, taxation proponents reply,
“Let’s raise taxes!” ...
Already one of the most expensive states per household for
state and local taxes, Massachusetts must consider the
allure of low- and no-tax states. Making it an even more
expensive state for businesses further increases the risk of
business and employee relocations. Examples of this
happening in other high-tax states abound — just ask
California or Connecticut.
The Legislature would do well to focus on the most vital
policy goal coming out of the pandemic — getting
Massachusetts residents back to work. Massachusetts doesn’t
need a job-killing tax scheme that was first hatched seven
years ago; it needs policies that are responsive to today’s
conditions and challenges, in which post-pandemic businesses
and jobs compete with online shopping and opportunities to
work remotely.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
No going back to ‘Taxachusetts’
The state’s already overflowing coffers will soon receive
billions from the federal government.
Instead of raising taxes, the focus should be on restoring
jobs.
By Bill Weld, Karen Andreas, Peter Forman, and Rick Sullivan
More than a year after Gov. Charlie Baker first ordered Bay
State residents to mask up to protect both themselves and
others from a little understood virus sweeping the globe,
the governor on Monday said if (and it's a BIG if) you are
fully vaccinated, you can drop the face covering in time for
the Memorial Day barbecue.
Baker was back from D.C. and clear-eyed about what the
latest guidance on mask wearing and vaccine effectiveness
from the Centers for Disease Control meant for the people
and businesses of Massachusetts.
Time to go back to the way things were, or at least
something more recognizable.
And it's not only masks that are getting shed like a jacket
on the first day temps climb above 65. Baker said on Monday
that along with the rescission of the mask mandate on May
29, all remaining business restrictions, capacity ceilings
and gathering limits would be lifted as well. That's two
months ahead of what Baker had initially been planning for,
and more in line with steps that some other states are
taking.
As for the public health emergency declared last March as
COVID-19 began to spread, no more after June 15.
The governor didn't want to say it, but it sure felt like he
was declaring the pandemic over....
When Baker ends the state of emergency, he will also be
giving up the rationale used for countless executive orders
and emergency laws designed to respond and help people and
employers adapt to a new way of semi-quarantined life.
That has created a conundrum for policy makers who must
decide, and decide pretty quickly, what deserves to stay
from the pandemic-era.
House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka
asked for and received a list of executive orders and
emergency regulations that will expire when the public
health emergency ends....
The Committee on Election Laws this week also heard
extensive testimony about why voting-by-mail should not be
just a way to avoid coming into contact with other humans
while participating in democracy, but a way to increase
participation in democracy in its own right....
The UI fix is the second attempt by Beacon Hill lawmakers to
come to the rescue of employers, but it left some in the
business community feeling still exposed.
Democratic leaders had been waiting to hear from the U.S.
Treasury on whether federal relief funds could be used to
build back depleted unemployment benefit systems, but after
being given the green light by the Biden administration the
bill they crafted didn't rely on any of that money at all -
at least for now.
Instead, the solution they crafted will spread the cost to
employers over 20 years as the state borrows to meet
pandemic benefit obligations that stretched the state
unemployment trust beyond its means....
If the Legislature does ultimately decide to spend federal
dollars to help businesses shoulder the heavier burden of UI
system costs, they could always pad the $273 million
supplemental budget Baker filed this week.
State House News Service
Friday, May 21, 2021
Weekly Roundup - Don’t Jinx It
After virtually vetting 923 budget amendments over 10 days,
Senate Democrats on Tuesday formally launch debate on a
$47.6 billion annual spending plan. The long review period
should give senators a strong sense of which amendments will
be packed into bundles for approval and rejection, and which
ones will require debate and individual recorded votes to
settle.
Senators are back on their traditional track toward
finishing work on their annual budget before Memorial Day
weekend. After that, the branches will send their differing
budgets to a conference committee. The goal is to have a
budget in place by the July 1 start of fiscal 2022, but
legislators have shown a willingness over the years to
continue working on the budget well past that deadline and
this year's talks may carry added significance as it's
possible that the six-member conference committee, perhaps
in consultation with the Baker administration, might mark up
anticipated revenues substantially based on recent revenue
growth, triggering other pivotal budget decisions.
State House News Service
Friday, May 21, 2021
Advances - Week of May 23, 2021 |
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The Boston Herald reported on Tuesday ("Eye-popping cost of
coronavirus pandemic laid bare in supplemental budget"):
A supplemental budget filed by Gov.
Charlie Baker offers a glimpse at the eye-popping cost
of the coronavirus pandemic in Massachusetts.
Coronavirus spending makes up 70%
of the $273 million supplemental spending plan for the
current fiscal year filed on Tuesday.
“These recommendations include $191
million to authorize spending certain federal funds made
available through COVID-related federal legislation, a
$0 net cost to the Commonwealth,” the governor wrote in
a Tuesday memo to lawmakers.
The federal monies to be spent in
Baker’s 69-page spending proposal come from Donald
Trump-era relief bills that ushered roughly $70 billion
in federal aid into the state[s].
State Rep. Dan Hunt, D-Dorchester,
who heads the House Committee on Federal Stimulus and
Census Oversight, said he expects collaboration between
the Legislature and the Baker administration on how the
state will spend the $5.3 billion awarded to
Massachusetts from President Biden’s American Rescue
plan.
On
Friday the State House News Service reported ("Fed Funds
Infusion Creating Unique Multi-Year Challenge"):
Massachusetts is getting so much
money from the federal government with unique
restrictions on how it is to be spent over the next
several years that the Legislature should consider
establishing a "separate para-budget process" for
American Rescue Plan Act money, an analyst told a House
committee Friday.
Between roughly $5.3 billion in
state fiscal relief, another nearly $3.4 billion for
local governments and other funding, the American Rescue
Plan Act is poised to funnel more than $13 billion to
the Bay State....
Friday's hearing also featured a
presentation from Doug Howgate, the executive vice
president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, who
detailed for lawmakers many of the do's and don'ts
spelled out in the U.S. Treasury's recent guidelines on
allowable uses of the latest round of federal relief
funds.
He highlighted the fact that for
some policy areas -- specifically housing, early
education and economic supports -- Massachusetts will
have three possible sources of funding: dedicated ARPA
money, flexible ARPA money and the money that is usually
appropriated through the state budget.
"How you coordinate those things
and make sure it's part of a cohesive plan to maximize
the benefit of those resources, that's going to be a
challenge that really needs a thoughtful approach
starting now about how we marry these fiscal recovery
funds with the state budget with other resources,"
Howgate said....
Howgate also explained Friday that
the state chunk of discretionary funding is now $5.3
billion, greater than the initial estimates of about
$4.5 billion. He said Massachusetts is one of 21 states
that will get its ARPA allocation as a lump sum -- other
states will get 50 percent now and the remainder after
one year.
Earlier in the week, on Tuesday
State House News Service reported ("House Plan Prevents
Spike in Biz Unemployment Costs; High Claims Costs Will Be
Spread Over 20 Years"):
The House approved a proposal
Tuesday that aims to relieve employers this spring from
major unexpected unemployment system costs, while
punting the decision on whether to deploy one-time
federal funds to address a benefits system that sagged
under the weight of pandemic unemployment.
In a move that business groups
described as a solid first step, representatives voted
157-0 to shuffle the distribution of unemployment claims
costs so that they can be covered over two decades of
borrowing and so businesses will not be in line for huge
bills in the short term....
Many businesses were blindsided
when they opened their first-quarter unemployment
contribution bills and found the solvency assessment
rate had jumped from 0.58 percent in 2020 to 9.23
percent in 2021, raising costs in many cases by hundreds
or thousands of dollars.
Under the legislation approved
Tuesday, the state would shift all COVID-related
unemployment claims from the solvency fund into a new
COVID claims fund and the solvency fund would revert to
its original function. Lawmakers already authorized $7
billion in bonding over 20 years as part of the original
unemployment stabilization bill Baker signed, so the
state would borrow to cover the newly created account.
Employers, who fund the state's
jobless aid system, will still be on the hook in the
long term, and a COVID-related assessment on businesses
will kick into effect for 2021 and 2022....
Business leaders and some lawmakers
have pushed to use some of the billions of dollars
Massachusetts will receive from the American Rescue Plan
to replenish the unemployment insurance trust fund after
a historic spike in job losses during last year's
mandatory economic shutdowns.
States are empowered to use the
relief money to restore unemployment funds under federal
guidance, and some have already done so, but -- to the
chagrin of several business leaders -- the House opted
not to pursue that option in its legislation Tuesday....
Industry groups offered mixed
reviews of the bill, praising the relief it will bring
in the coming weeks while calling for additional action
to soften the burden businesses will need to carry over
the next two decades.
"You could characterize this as a
short-term solution. Some might characterize it as a
long-term solution, but I think those that do that are
not looking at the big picture," Retailers Association
of Massachusetts President Jon Hurst told the News
Service. "If anybody thinks this is the only solution,
that would not be acceptable in employers' minds."
Hurst contested Cutler's
description that the fix uses "our own resources,"
arguing that the costs over the next 20 years will still
fall to current and future employers "for claims that
were not their fault," brought on by government-ordered
capacity limits and business closures. He urged Beacon
Hill and Capitol Hill leaders to work together and
direct taxpayer dollars to offset the costs, whether by
using ARPA funding or a new package aimed specifically
at unemployment trust funds.
"I'm not saying the entire $4.5
billion ARPA money or the entire trust fund deficit must
be paid by state and federal government or socialized,
or that employers can't pick up part of the tab, but it
would be an absolute failure and we would be an outlier
among other states if we expected employers to pay the
entire bill for the COVID crisis," Hurst said.
Christopher Carlozzi, state
director for the National Federation of Independent
Businesses, said the plan unveiled Tuesday is "another
step towards providing employers with immediate UI tax
relief."
"We are thankful that it will help
many employers avoid those astronomically high first
quarter bills, however a long term solution will still
be necessary," he said in a statement, adding that many
job losses were a result of COVID restrictions. "The
state must be required to use some of the billions in
federal aid to help offset costs for business owners
who, under this proposal, are still solely responsible
for refilling the unemployment trust. Other states used
federal CARES Act and ARPA money to refill depleted
unemployment funds, Massachusetts should help struggling
businesses by following their example."
Beacon Hill Roll Call this week included reporting on the
bankrupt state unemployment trust fund burden being put
entirely on businesses, writing:
House
157-0, Senate 40-0, approved and sent to Gov. Baker a
bill . . . is also designed to relieve employers this
spring from expensive unexpected unemployment system
costs. Many businesses were shocked when they saw their
first-quarter unemployment contribution bills and found
the solvency assessment rate had jumped from 0.58
percent in 2020 to 9.23 percent in 2021, raising costs
in many cases by hundreds or thousands of dollars.
When contacted by BHRC for my reaction to the passage of the
bill I responded:
“The
unemployment benefits crisis was directly caused by Gov.
Baker’s shutdown of the state’s economy and the
Legislature’s failure to act,” said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“The federal government provided relief with its
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), but the House chose not
to use those funds to mitigate the burden the state
imposed on employers. It is unconscionable for the
state to further abuse devastated businesses when
federal funds have been made available to alleviate that
pain.”
Other affected parties responded:
“This proposal is a good step to
help provide employers immediate unemployment insurance
tax relief, but it is not a long-term solution,” said
National Federation of Independent Business's (NFIB)
Massachusetts State Director Christopher Carlozzi.
“The state forced businesses to close their doors and
rollback operations resulting in widespread layoffs.
Because of this, employers alone should not be left to
shoulder the entire UI tax burden and policymakers must
use some of the billions of dollars in federal aid to
help replenish the UI trust fund like so many other
states have done.”
“This legislation is an important
stopgap step to prevent up to 1,600 percent immediate
tax increases for Massachusetts employers,” said Jon
Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts. “It will amortize the
multi-billion-dollar COVID-related claims over 20 years,
spreading out, but not eliminating the pain. Still
there needs to be a shared responsibility with
government to cover some of the UI Trust Fund debt.
The orders, restrictions, messaging, emergency benefits
and fraudulent claims were related to government
actions, not that of employers. So there still
needs to be a determination on how much of the federal
relief dollars under either the CARES Act or ARPA will
be the government’s responsibility for the debt of
approximately $4 billion. Massachusetts will be
receiving $4.5 billion [at that time, on Tuesday; it's
since been increased to $5.3 billion] under the ARPA.
Most other states have used federal COVID relief dollars
to reduce the overall UI tax hit for their employers,
and Massachusetts must support their small businesses
and employers in a similar way.”
On a related issue Beacon Hill Roll Call reported
("Unemployed
Claimants Must Look For Work"):
Gov. Baker announced that effective
June 15, 2021, the work search requirements will be
reinstated for all regular Unemployment Insurance (UI)
claimants. Massachusetts temporarily suspended these
requirements in March 2020 when the pandemic began.
Under the reinstated regulations,
claimants must attest each week that they are making at
least three work-search activities and provide proof of
that activity to the Department of Unemployment
Assistance, if requested, in order to maintain
eligibility for UI benefits. Examples of valid
work-search activities include completing a job
application in person or online with employers who
reasonably may be expected to have an opening for
suitable work; registering for work and reemployment
services with a local Mass Hire Career Center; and using
other job search activities, such as reviewing job
listings on the internet, newspapers or professional
journals, contacting professional associations and
networking with colleagues or friends.
When asked for my reaction by Bob Katzen, publisher of BHRC,
I responded:
"'As of
April 2021, there were nearly 200,000 job-postings
across Massachusetts, the highest that figure has ever
been in history' tells it all," said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
"The state's multi-billion dollar unemployment benefits
crisis has a solution: Get everyone back to work.
This 'work search requirement’ is a good start, if
belated. Get out of the way and let the economy
fully reopen, recover, and flourish, return us to those
pre-pandemic employment highs."
Tying this all together with the proposed graduated income
tax (aka, the "Millionaires Tax" or "Fair Share Amendment")
was a column published by The Boston Globe on Wednesday
co-authored by
former-Gov. Bill Weld and CEOs of regional chambers of
commerce and economic development, Karen Andreas, Peter
Forman, and Rick Sullivan ("No going back to ‘Taxachusetts’
— The state’s already
overflowing coffers will soon receive billions from the
federal government"):
Ironic, incongruous, inconceivable,
or all of the above? The Massachusetts Department of
Revenue recently announced that April collections were
$385 million ahead of estimates. That should come as no
surprise because collections outpaced projections by
hundreds of millions of dollars each month this year.
In a great irony, on the same day
that the DOR announced that April revenues put
Massachusetts $3.4 billion ahead of this time last year,
a union-backed lobbying group, Raise Up Massachusetts,
kicked off a campaign to raise taxes by $2 billion
annually.
Proponents of the self-styled Fair
Share Amendment — commonly called the millionaires tax,
which was originally proposed seven years ago — assert
that more tax dollars are needed to cover additional
state spending. But state budgets have long been rising
at twice the rate of inflation, and in addition to
spending increases, excess revenues have also swelled
the critical rainy day fund to record levels.
It’s fair to call the claim that we
need to raise more, even when we haven’t come close to
spending what we have, incongruous.
What makes the play by the
insatiable tax-and-spenders more inconceivable is that
the state’s already overflowing coffers will soon
receive billions from the federal government to make up
for coronavirus pandemic-related budget gaps that never
materialized, even in the face of statewide business
shutdowns. The Commonwealth has already received
billions of dollars from the federal government to
“weather the storm,” a storm that has actually resulted
in deposits into the rainy day fund.
State policy makers, anticipating
the arrival of $4.5 billion [again, now increased to
$5.3 billion] in federal stimulus, are correctly asking
what should be done next. Even in the face of a state
budget that is overflowing with cash and will probably
benefit from an economy that appears ready to bust out
and generate surpluses as it did pre-pandemic, taxation
proponents reply, “Let’s raise taxes!” ...
Already one of the most expensive
states per household for state and local taxes,
Massachusetts must consider the allure of low- and
no-tax states. Making it an even more expensive state
for businesses further increases the risk of business
and employee relocations. Examples of this happening in
other high-tax states abound — just ask California or
Connecticut.
The Legislature would do well to
focus on the most vital policy goal coming out of the
pandemic — getting Massachusetts residents back to work.
Massachusetts doesn’t need a job-killing tax scheme that
was first hatched seven years ago; it needs policies
that are responsive to today’s conditions and
challenges, in which post-pandemic businesses and jobs
compete with online shopping and opportunities to work
remotely.
But as always, The Takers are circling like buzzards
over fresh road kill. "Never let a good crisis go to
waste."
The
State House News Service reported on Tuesday ("Higher Ed
Funding Bill Now Backed by At Least 90 Lawmakers
— Movement to Shift College
Cost Burden Grows"):
Massachusetts Teachers Association
Vice President Max Page opened up his testimony before
the Higher Education Committee Tuesday by sharing his
screen with lawmakers, displaying a photo of the fine
arts center at UMass Amherst....
Page was one of several speakers to
make the case to the committee that graduating without
debt was once the norm for public college and university
graduates and to ask the legislators to return to a
model where students shouldered less of the cost
burden...
Bills before the committee propose
various approaches to helping students pay for college,
including MTA-backed bills that would create a
free-college grant program and that would steer $500
million in additional state dollars into public higher
education over five years.
Referred to by its supporters as
the Cherish Act, the $500 million bill would also freeze
tuition and fees at public colleges and universities
through fiscal 2026. It aims to bring per-student state
funding for public higher education back to its 2001
level....
Don't you love the teachers union's plan to "steer $500
million" in "state dollars" into heavily taxpayer-subsidized
if not outright free college tuition? "State dollars"
first must be taken by force of law from productive
taxpayers. Prior to that taking by force those dollars
were ours!
On Tuesday the state Senate will begin debating its
Fiscal Year 2022
$47.6 billion-and-counting budget. In its Advances
for coming week on Beacon Hill the State House News Service
reported on Friday:
After virtually vetting 923 budget
amendments over 10 days, Senate Democrats on Tuesday
formally launch debate on a $47.6 billion annual
spending plan. The long review period should give
senators a strong sense of which amendments will be
packed into bundles for approval and rejection, and
which ones will require debate and individual recorded
votes to settle.
Senators are back on their
traditional track toward finishing work on their annual
budget before Memorial Day weekend. After that, the
branches will send their differing budgets to a
conference committee. The goal is to have a budget in
place by the July 1 start of fiscal 2022, but
legislators have shown a willingness over the years to
continue working on the budget well past that deadline
and this year's talks may carry added significance as
it's possible that the six-member conference committee,
perhaps in consultation with the Baker administration,
might mark up anticipated revenues substantially based
on recent revenue growth, triggering other pivotal
budget decisions.
A note from
Bob Katzen, Publisher of Beacon Hill Roll Call:
Join me
this Sunday night and every Sunday night between 5 p.m. and
8 p.m. for my talk show “The Bob Katzen Baby Boomer and Gen
X Show.” Jump in my time capsule and come back to the
simpler days of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
There are
many ways you can listen to the show from anywhere in the
world:
• If you have a smart
speaker, simply say, “Play WMEX on Audacy.com”
• Download the free
Audacy app on your phone or tablet
• Listen online at
www.wmexboston.com
• Or tune into 1510
AM if you have an AM radio.
Visit us at
www.bobkatzenshow.com
CLICK GRAPHIC ABOVE TO ENLARGE
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
Full News Reports Follow
(excerpted above) |
|
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Eye-popping cost of coronavirus pandemic laid bare in
supplemental budget
By Erin Tiernan
A supplemental budget filed by Gov. Charlie Baker offers a
glimpse at the eye-popping cost of the coronavirus pandemic
in Massachusetts.
Coronavirus spending makes up 70% of the $273 million
supplemental spending plan for the current fiscal year filed
on Tuesday.
“These recommendations include $191 million to authorize
spending certain federal funds made available through COVID-related
federal legislation, a $0 net cost to the Commonwealth,” the
governor wrote in a Tuesday memo to lawmakers.
The federal monies to be spent in Baker’s 69-page spending
proposal come from Donald Trump-era relief bills that
ushered roughly $70 billion in federal aid into the state[s].
State Rep. Dan Hunt, D-Dorchester, who heads the House
Committee on Federal Stimulus and Census Oversight, said he
expects collaboration between the Legislature and the Baker
administration on how the state will spend the $5.3 billion
awarded to Massachusetts from President Biden’s American
Rescue plan.
Hunt and his team are “pouring through” the 700-page bill
and its accompanying 160 pages of guidance, the Dorchester
Democrat said.
“It seems like we are going to have some broad latitude to
spend this once-in-a-generation funding,” Hunt said.
Hunt’s committee was created this session by first-term
House Speaker Ronald Mariano, who has signaled his desire
for the Legislature to take a greater oversight role in the
spending of billions of relief dollars flowing into the
state.
Baker’s budget bill also makes another stab at establishing
a permanent seven-member board of overseers for the MBTA.
The charge for the existing Fiscal Management Control Board
— created in 2015 — is slated to expire July 1.
Lawmakers last year were unable to agree on the makeup of a
permanent oversight authority for the transit agency when
they found themselves at odds over the size of Boston’s
role, its duration and more.
Baker’s supplemental budget also seeks “a number of
corrections” to an economic development bill passed last
session “to allow for the proper implementation of important
policies” signed into law, according to his memo to
lawmakers.
State House News Service
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
House Plan Prevents Spike in Biz Unemployment Costs
High Claims Costs Will Be Spread Over 20 Years
By Chris Lisinski and Michael P. Norton
The House approved a proposal Tuesday that aims to relieve
employers this spring from major unexpected unemployment
system costs, while punting the decision on whether to
deploy one-time federal funds to address a benefits system
that sagged under the weight of pandemic unemployment.
In a move that business groups described as a solid first
step, representatives voted 157-0 to shuffle the
distribution of unemployment claims costs so that they can
be covered over two decades of borrowing and so businesses
will not be in line for huge bills in the short term.
After weeks of review, the House on Tuesday also revived
plans for an emergency paid leave program that would make
participants eligible for up to one week of paid leave if
they or a family member needs it to deal with COVID-19
issues, including self-isolation, seeking a diagnosis, or
obtaining an immunization. The House sent the bill to the
Senate after rejecting amendments to the measure sought by
Gov. Charlie Baker.
The legislation (H 3702) addressing a spike in solvency rate
assessments on businesses aims to achieve the same goal as
an unemployment system stabilization bill Baker signed on
April 1, before it became apparent that the original pass
failed to fully prevent business cost spikes tied to
unprecedented pandemic job losses.
Before the pandemic, employers that laid off more workers
typically received higher experience ratings that increased
the amount they owe into the state's unemployment system.
However, the U.S. Department of Labor told states not to
apply those penalties for losses stemming from COVID-19
impacts. Massachusetts, as a result, spread out the costs
across all industries through the solvency fund assessment,
which in the past had been used to cover benefits that
cannot be charged directly to employers, such as dependency
allowances and state extended benefits.
"In a typical year, this is a small factor, but as we all
know, this year was anything but typical," said Labor and
Workforce Development Committee Co-chair Rep. Josh Cutler,
who was the only lawmaker to speak about the proposal during
Tuesday's session.
Many businesses were blindsided when they opened their
first-quarter unemployment contribution bills and found the
solvency assessment rate had jumped from 0.58 percent in
2020 to 9.23 percent in 2021, raising costs in many cases by
hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Under the legislation approved Tuesday, the state would
shift all COVID-related unemployment claims from the
solvency fund into a new COVID claims fund and the solvency
fund would revert to its original function. Lawmakers
already authorized $7 billion in bonding over 20 years as
part of the original unemployment stabilization bill Baker
signed, so the state would borrow to cover the newly created
account.
Employers, who fund the state's jobless aid system, will
still be on the hook in the long term, and a COVID-related
assessment on businesses will kick into effect for 2021 and
2022. However, lawmakers believe the legislation will
correct huge spikes in solvency fund charges that hit
businesses in March and April.
For many, the quarterly bills will return to an amount
roughly in line with 2020 rates, Cutler said. Some
businesses may even owe less than they did last year.
As a result of the change, the solvency assessment rate
should fall from 9.23 percent to about 1.1 percent, a figure
much closer to its historic levels, Cutler said.
The state Department of Unemployment Assistance would
recalculate and resend bills to every employer. The bill
would also postpone the due date for first-quarter bills,
already delayed by about a month, from June 1 to July 31.
Employers who already paid the inflated version of their
bills will receive a credit for the difference, Cutler said.
Any new unemployment claims filed after Aug. 1 would be
charged to employer accounts, essentially reverting to how
the system functioned before the pandemic and the federal
guidance.
Business leaders and some lawmakers have pushed to use some
of the billions of dollars Massachusetts will receive from
the American Rescue Plan to replenish the unemployment
insurance trust fund after a historic spike in job losses
during last year's mandatory economic shutdowns.
States are empowered to use the relief money to restore
unemployment funds under federal guidance, and some have
already done so, but -- to the chagrin of several business
leaders -- the House opted not to pursue that option in its
legislation Tuesday.
"We're not relying on federal money here," Cutler said in an
interview. "This is a solution that does not rely on federal
funds. We've come up with a solution that works with our own
resources and does not rely on federal funding for this.
That door is still open, but today this action does not rely
on federal money."
Industry groups offered mixed reviews of the bill, praising
the relief it will bring in the coming weeks while calling
for additional action to soften the burden businesses will
need to carry over the next two decades.
"You could characterize this as a short-term solution. Some
might characterize it as a long-term solution, but I think
those that do that are not looking at the big picture,"
Retailers Association of Massachusetts President Jon Hurst
told the News Service. "If anybody thinks this is the only
solution, that would not be acceptable in employers' minds."
Hurst contested Cutler's description that the fix uses "our
own resources," arguing that the costs over the next 20
years will still fall to current and future employers "for
claims that were not their fault," brought on by
government-ordered capacity limits and business closures. He
urged Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill leaders to work together
and direct taxpayer dollars to offset the costs, whether by
using ARPA funding or a new package aimed specifically at
unemployment trust funds.
"I'm not saying the entire $4.5 billion ARPA money or the
entire trust fund deficit must be paid by state and federal
government or socialized, or that employers can't pick up
part of the tab, but it would be an absolute failure and we
would be an outlier among other states if we expected
employers to pay the entire bill for the COVID crisis,"
Hurst said.
Christopher Carlozzi, state director for the National
Federation of Independent Businesses, said the plan unveiled
Tuesday is "another step towards providing employers with
immediate UI tax relief."
"We are thankful that it will help many employers avoid
those astronomically high first quarter bills, however a
long term solution will still be necessary," he said in a
statement, adding that many job losses were a result of
COVID restrictions. "The state must be required to use some
of the billions in federal aid to help offset costs for
business owners who, under this proposal, are still solely
responsible for refilling the unemployment trust. Other
states used federal CARES Act and ARPA money to refill
depleted unemployment funds, Massachusetts should help
struggling businesses by following their example."
Lawmakers, industry heads, labor leaders and other experts
are already working on a big-picture analysis of the state's
unemployment system. A 21-member commission created under
the original stabilization bill convened its first meeting
last week, and it is tasked with submitting recommendations
by Dec. 15 on how to ensure the unemployment insurance trust
fund's permanent solvency.
Cutler said on the House floor that the Senate and the Baker
administration collaborated on the legislation approved
Tuesday, an approach that could make reaching a final
agreement on the matter easier.
Senate President Karen Spilka's office said Monday that she
believes the legislation is "a sound proposal."
"Once received from the House, we look forward to reviewing
and discussing this proposal with our colleagues and
advancing a fix to ensure stability for our employers," a
Spilka spokesperson said in a statement.
Baker spokesperson Terry MacCormack said in a statement that
the administration "feels strongly that this issue needs to
be addressed quickly and is pleased to work with our
colleagues in the Legislature to accomplish that goal" and
will "review the final legislation that reaches the
Governor's desk."
The Senate's next session is Thursday, but it's unclear if
the proposal will surface for consideration then.
The House on Tuesday also turned back Baker's calls to
exclude municipal employees from an emergency COVID-19 paid
leave program and to provide reimbursement for paid leave
costs through an employee tax credit. The underlying
proposal, paired in the same bill with the unemployment
insurance system fixes, requires employers to provide up to
one week of emergency paid leave based on the number of
hours an employee works, and under a cap that limits total
pay to $850 per week.
Employee advocates for more than a year have been calling
for a paid leave program, with groups like Raise Up
Massachusetts saying too often essential workers were
choosing to work so they could make money rather than
staying home and seeking COVID-19 testing if they were
exhibiting symptoms of the virus.
The Legislature included COVID-19 paid leave protections in
the initial unemployment insurance stabilization bill in
April, but Baker returned that section with amendments. The
House's return to the plan more than a month later comes as
COVID-19 cases fall and millions of residents have secured
vaccinations against the virus.
"The House stands firm in supporting our municipal workers,"
Cutler said from the House floor. "Our municipal employees
including teachers, DPW workers, police officers,
firefighters, health agents, janitors, veterans agents,
counseling on aging workers, librarians, and many others
have been essential to the state's COVID-19 response and
certainly are just as deserving of these benefits."
Employees would be eligible for paid leave if they need to
self-isolate, seek a medical diagnosis, obtain an
immunization, comply with a quarantine order or
determination by a local, state or federal public official,
if they are unable to telework because of a COVID-19
diagnosis, or if the employee needs to care for a family
member who needs to self-isolate, needs a medical diagnosis,
or is subject to a quarantine.
The Baker administration has defended its proposed exclusion
of municipal workers from the program, arguing that
municipal workers have strong leave protections in place
already and that many municipalities can access federal
funds to implement their own leave programs that could align
with state and federal leave guarantees.
Baker also proposed to convert the program funding to a $40
per employee tax credit for all companies unable to access
federal credits, regardless of whether the employee uses the
leave benefit. The governor said this would not add to the
cost of the program, but would prevent it from abruptly
ending when the $75 million proposed for employer
reimbursements runs out.
— Chris Van Buskirk
contributed reporting
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Volume 46 - Report No. 21
May 17-21, 2021
By Bob Katzen
COVID-19 Emergency Sick Leave And Unemployment Insurance
Changes (H 3771)
House 157-0, Senate 40-0, approved and sent to Gov. Baker a
bill that would provide qualified workers with up to five
days of paid leave for COVID-related emergencies including
workers who are sick with the virus, under a quarantine
order, recovering from receiving a vaccine or caring for a
family member ill with the virus.
The measure is also designed to relieve employers this
spring from expensive unexpected unemployment system costs.
Many businesses were shocked when they saw their
first-quarter unemployment contribution bills and found the
solvency assessment rate had jumped from 0.58 percent in
2020 to 9.23 percent in 2021, raising costs in many cases by
hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Under the proposal, the state would shift all COVID-related
unemployment claims from the solvency fund into a new COVID
claims fund and the solvency fund would revert to its
original function. Employers, who fund the state's jobless
aid system, will still be on the hook in the long term, and
a COVID-related assessment on businesses will kick into
effect for 2021 and 2022.
Under the proposal, the state would shift all COVID-related
unemployment claims from the solvency fund into a new COVID
claims fund and the solvency fund would revert to its
original function. Employers, who fund the state's jobless
aid system, will still be on the hook in the long term, and
a COVID-related assessment on businesses will kick into
effect for 2021 and 2022....
“The unemployment benefits crisis was directly caused by
Gov. Baker’s shutdown of the state’s economy and the
Legislature’s failure to act,” said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“The federal government provided relief with its American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), but the House chose not to use those
funds to mitigate the burden the state imposed on employers.
It is unconscionable for the state to further abuse
devastated businesses when federal funds have been made
available to alleviate that pain.”
“This proposal is a good step to help provide employers
immediate unemployment insurance tax relief, but it is not a
long-term solution,” said National Federation of Independent
Business's (NFIB) Massachusetts State Director Christopher
Carlozzi. “The state forced businesses to close their doors
and rollback operations resulting in widespread layoffs.
Because of this, employers alone should not be left to
shoulder the entire UI tax burden and policymakers must use
some of the billions of dollars in federal aid to help
replenish the UI trust fund like so many other states have
done.”
“This legislation is an important stopgap step to prevent up
to 1,600 percent immediate tax increases for Massachusetts
employers,” said Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers
Association of Massachusetts. “It will amortize the
multi-billion-dollar COVID-related claims over 20 years,
spreading out, but not eliminating the pain. Still there
needs to be a shared responsibility with government to cover
some of the UI Trust Fund debt. The orders, restrictions,
messaging, emergency benefits and fraudulent claims were
related to government actions, not that of employers. So
there still needs to be a determination on how much of the
federal relief dollars under either the CARES Act or ARPA
will be the government’s responsibility for the debt of
approximately $4 billion. Massachusetts will be receiving
$4.5 billion under the ARPA. Most other states have used
federal COVID relief dollars to reduce the overall UI tax
hit for their employers, and Massachusetts must support
their small businesses and employers in a similar way.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Volume 46 - Report No. 21
May 17-21, 2021
By Bob Katzen
Unemployed Claimants Must Look For Work
Gov. Baker announced that effective June 15, 2021, the work
search requirements will be reinstated for all regular
Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants. Massachusetts
temporarily suspended these requirements in March 2020 when
the pandemic began.
Under the reinstated regulations, claimants must attest each
week that they are making at least three work-search
activities and provide proof of that activity to the
Department of Unemployment Assistance, if requested, in
order to maintain eligibility for UI benefits. Examples of
valid work-search activities include completing a job
application in person or online with employers who
reasonably may be expected to have an opening for suitable
work; registering for work and reemployment services with a
local Mass Hire Career Center; and using other job search
activities, such as reviewing job listings on the internet,
newspapers or professional journals, contacting professional
associations and networking with colleagues or friends.
“This is very good news for everyone,” said Paul Craney
executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.
“Businesses, workers and customers all need to get back to
normal and this is a good first step toward that. Businesses
are having a hard time hiring workers because the
unemployment benefits are so generous. Customers cannot
enjoy their favorite businesses because these businesses are
dealing with a shortage of workers.”
“I am completely opposed to Gov. Baker’s move to reinstate
work search requirements for UI claimants starting June
15th,” said Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge). “This adds an
additional layer of complexity to a UI system that has
greatly struggled to deliver benefits in a timely fashion
for many residents. Moreover, we’ve just experienced one of
the biggest disruptions to the labor market in history, so
imposing these requirements right now will tend to
perpetuate systemic racism and other inequities by pushing
some of our most vulnerable residents into accepting
underpaid work or work in unsafe conditions.”
[SUBMITTED BY REQUEST OF BEACON HILL ROLL CALL BUT NOT
PUBLISHED]:
"'As of April 2021, there were nearly 200,000 job-postings
across Massachusetts, the highest that figure has ever been
in history' tells it all," said Chip Ford, executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "The
state's multi-billion dollar unemployment benefits crisis
has a solution: Get everyone back to work. This 'work search
requirement’ is a good start, if belated. Get out of the way
and let the economy fully reopen, recover, and flourish,
return us to those pre-pandemic employment highs."
State House News Service
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Higher Ed Funding Bill Now Backed by At Least 90 Lawmakers
Movement to Shift College Cost Burden Grows
By Katie Lannan
Massachusetts Teachers Association Vice President Max Page
opened up his testimony before the Higher Education
Committee Tuesday by sharing his screen with lawmakers,
displaying a photo of the fine arts center at UMass Amherst.
Page said the 646-foot-long Brutalist building was
constructed with state money in the late 1960s and early
1970s, and that with its indoor spaces elevated above the
ground it "literally lifted up on a pedestal the arts for
working class students."
Page was one of several speakers to make the case to the
committee that graduating without debt was once the norm for
public college and university graduates and to ask the
legislators to return to a model where students shouldered
less of the cost burden.
"We're not inventing the utopian world of the future," he
said. "We're simply going back to the future, in a way.
We're trying to reclaim what we had."
Bills before the committee propose various approaches to
helping students pay for college, including MTA-backed bills
that would create a free-college grant program and that
would steer $500 million in additional state dollars into
public higher education over five years.
Referred to by its supporters as the Cherish Act, the $500
million bill would also freeze tuition and fees at public
colleges and universities through fiscal 2026. It aims to
bring per-student state funding for public higher education
back to its 2001 level.
Between fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2019, per student state
funding for higher education fell by 31 percent, said Sen.
Jo Comerford, who filed the bill (H 1339, S 824) with Reps.
Sean Garballey and Paul Mark.
"This has contributed to higher tuition and fees and really
crushing student debt," she said.
Comerford, a Northampton Democrat who serves as vice chair
of the Higher Education Committee, said 90 of the
Legislature's 200 members have signed on as co-sponsors.
Senate Chair Anne Gobi told Comerford that she and her House
counterpart, Rep. David Rogers, elected to hold a hearing on
the bill "early" this term "to show how committed we are to
working on this bill and working with you and understanding
the importance of what we can do for students across
Massachusetts."
"Last session, we had a lot of hopes for this Cherish Act,"
Gobi said.
In late December 2020, the waning days of the last
legislative session, the Higher Education Committee included
the House and Senate versions of the Cherish Act in study
orders, effectively killing them.
Bills from Sen. Jamie Eldridge and Rep. Natalie Higgins,
which would create a grant program to cover the full cost of
tuition and fees for Massachusetts residents attending state
colleges and universities or certificate, vocational or
training programs at public institutions, met the same fate
last year.
The two Democrats pitched the committee on the re-filed
version of their bill (H 1339, S 829). Higgins said a new
feature this time around is that income-eligible students
would also receive additional grants to pay for costs like
housing, textbooks and transportation.
Higgins said the state's MASSGrant financial aid program
could cover about 90 percent of tuition and fees and fees
for most UMass Amherst students in 1988, and today covers
less than 9 percent.
She said the question she usually gets about the bill is how
to pay for it, and pointed to another bill on the
committee's docket for the day -- Sen. Adam Gomez's proposal
(S 836) to impose a 2.5 percent excise tax on private higher
education institutions with endowments over $1 billion. The
revenue collected would be deposited into a new trust fund
"used exclusively for the purposes of subsidizing the cost
of higher education, early education and child care for
lower-income and middle-class residents of the
commonwealth."
A House version of that bill (H 2931), which Higgins filed,
is before the Revenue Committee.
"There are 11 private higher ed institutions that have
endowments over a billion dollars," she said. "If we just
taxed above a billion dollars at two-and-a-half percent --
really just some of that interest that they're making -- we
would raise $1.6 billion a year, not only for higher ed but
also for early ed."
Higgins said half of that $1.6 billion could "wipe out
tuition and fees across all 29 public colleges and
universities in the commonwealth."
Rob McCarron, the senior vice president and general counsel
for the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
in Massachusetts, spoke in opposition to the endowment tax
plan.
He said it "would target the very institutions that have
stepped up in such a big way to help the state respond to
the COVID-19 pandemic," referencing efforts across higher
education to pivot to remote learning, donate personal
protective equipment, repurpose dorms to house first
responders and create COVID-19 testing programs.
"Endowments and private philanthropy are essential to
colleges and universities," McCarron said. "It is what
allows them to maintain excellence in academic programs and
research."
He said a "significant" portion of each endowment is
restricted to purposes -- like specific research or academic
programs -- designated by its donors, and that colleges and
universities are legally obligated by those donor
restrictions. The tax would "erode donor confidence," make
fundraising more difficult, and "weaken the competitiveness"
of the state's higher education sector, McCarron said.
State House News Service
Friday, May 21, 2021
Fed Funds Infusion Creating Unique Multi-Year Challenge
Lawmakers Await First ARPA Proposal from Gov. Baker
By Colin A. Young
Massachusetts is getting so much money from the federal
government with unique restrictions on how it is to be spent
over the next several years that the Legislature should
consider establishing a "separate para-budget process" for
American Rescue Plan Act money, an analyst told a House
committee Friday.
Between roughly $5.3 billion in state fiscal relief, another
nearly $3.4 billion for local governments and other funding,
the American Rescue Plan Act is poised to funnel more than
$13 billion to the Bay State.
Generally speaking, the funds must be committed by the end
of 2024 and spent by the end of 2026. That presents the
state with some opportunities and challenges, Evan Horowitz,
executive director of the Center for State Policy Analysis
at Tufts University, said.
"On the plus side, it means there will be time for robust
debate around spending decisions. Just because federal
dollars are expected to reach state hands in the coming
months doesn't mean they must be immediately spent; better
to make room for careful planning and real deliberation," he
told the House Committee on Federal Stimulus and Census
Oversight. "However, the multi-year time frame is also long
enough to allow for a lot of temporization and can-kicking.
Absent a near-term deadline or other forcing mechanism, it
could be hard to reach timely agreement among groups with
different goals and priorities."
So, Horowitz suggested, the Legislature could benefit from
putting ARPA spending decisions on their own annual or
semi-annual cycle and establishing interim spending targets
as the state works through what he called a "seismic fiscal
event" that will involve more money than previous stimulus
programs and spending guidelines that are far more flexible
than those for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009.
"The timeframes are different. The players are different in
terms of who's coordinating the spending of money across
different levels. The fungibility questions vary across
timeframes," he said. Horowitz added, "We do often separate
capital budgets from spending budgets, in general. And this
isn't exactly capital spending, but it has the one-time
structure that makes it right for a different kind of
thought process for spending decisions and budgeting
considerations."
Rep. John Barrett, the committee vice chair, liked the idea
and told Horowtiz he thought it was "practical."
"I would think it would also be easier to monitor the
spending and the planning and things like that, by
segregating it in a way that addresses many of them and
makes sense," he said. "That's my big concern, making sure
that where we recommend the money go ... assuring that it
gets there. And that'd be the clearest and cleanest way of
doing it, I would assume."
Friday's hearing also featured a presentation from Doug
Howgate, the executive vice president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, who detailed for lawmakers many of the
do's and don'ts spelled out in the U.S. Treasury's recent
guidelines on allowable uses of the latest round of federal
relief funds.
He highlighted the fact that for some policy areas --
specifically housing, early education and economic supports
-- Massachusetts will have three possible sources of
funding: dedicated ARPA money, flexible ARPA money and the
money that is usually appropriated through the state budget.
"How you coordinate those things and make sure it's part of
a cohesive plan to maximize the benefit of those resources,
that's going to be a challenge that really needs a
thoughtful approach starting now about how we marry these
fiscal recovery funds with the state budget with other
resources," Howgate said.
He said he thinks "the approach that the Legislature looks
to be taking to the fiscal recovery plans of appropriating
these funds over the next several years makes a ton of
sense" but urged lawmakers not to lose sight of the
importance of coordination.
"A big challenge in terms of how you use these resources is
how you balance the need right now with the reality that you
need to make sure that these resources are available for
what they're supposed to be used for over a longer time
horizon," he said. "That's going to again require some
thought."
Howgate also explained Friday that the state chunk of
discretionary funding is now $5.3 billion, greater than the
initial estimates of about $4.5 billion. He said
Massachusetts is one of 21 states that will get its ARPA
allocation as a lump sum -- other states will get 50 percent
now and the remainder after one year.
"The $5.3 billion reminds me of the Prego pasta sauce --
'it's in there.' So as long as it's coronavirus related then
we as a commonwealth or the cities and towns can charge off
to those sources," Chairman Rep. Dan Hunt said Friday.
The chairman added, "But as far where, mechanically, things
will go and how they will go, that's going to be a
conversation among leadership. So the speaker and the Senate
president and the governor are going to have to get together
and figure out a piece of legislation that will identify
whether we do this in a short-term period, whether we
identify priorities on the front end or lay out a plan for
the five years. That's going to be a conversation that the
Gang of Three has going forward."
After the hearing, Hunt said that while prior federal
stimulus laws were "very specific and prescriptive on
responding to the active virus," the American Rescue Plan
Act "is focused on recovering the economy and the nation
after we get back on track and to make sure that everyone
shares in that recovery. We know that women and minorities
and certain economic sectors have suffered much worse than
others."
In April, House Speaker Ron Mariano said lawmakers may deal
with ARPA spending in June, after the annual state budget
has been sent to a conference committee.
"We look forward to seeing a product from the governor's
office to review in the near future," Hunt said Friday.
— Michael P. Norton
contributed reporting
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
No going back to ‘Taxachusetts’
The state’s already overflowing coffers will soon receive
billions from the federal government.
Instead of raising taxes, the focus should be on restoring
jobs.
By Bill Weld, Karen Andreas, Peter Forman, and Rick Sullivan
Ironic, incongruous, inconceivable, or all of the above? The
Massachusetts Department of Revenue recently announced that
April collections were $385 million ahead of estimates. That
should come as no surprise because collections outpaced
projections by hundreds of millions of dollars each month
this year.
In a great irony, on the same day that the DOR announced
that April revenues put Massachusetts $3.4 billion ahead of
this time last year, a union-backed lobbying group, Raise Up
Massachusetts, kicked off a campaign to raise taxes by $2
billion annually.
Proponents of the self-styled Fair Share Amendment —
commonly called the millionaires tax, which was originally
proposed seven years ago — assert that more tax dollars are
needed to cover additional state spending. But state budgets
have long been rising at twice the rate of inflation, and in
addition to spending increases, excess revenues have also
swelled the critical rainy day fund to record levels.
It’s fair to call the claim that we need to raise more, even
when we haven’t come close to spending what we have,
incongruous.
What makes the play by the insatiable tax-and-spenders more
inconceivable is that the state’s already overflowing
coffers will soon receive billions from the federal
government to make up for coronavirus pandemic-related
budget gaps that never materialized, even in the face of
statewide business shutdowns. The Commonwealth has already
received billions of dollars from the federal government to
“weather the storm,” a storm that has actually resulted in
deposits into the rainy day fund.
State policy makers, anticipating the arrival of $4.5
billion in federal stimulus, are correctly asking what
should be done next. Even in the face of a state budget that
is overflowing with cash and will probably benefit from an
economy that appears ready to bust out and generate
surpluses as it did pre-pandemic, taxation proponents reply,
“Let’s raise taxes!”
Already one of the most expensive states per household for
state and local taxes, Massachusetts must consider the
allure of low- and no-tax states. Making it an even more
expensive state for businesses further increases the risk of
business and employee relocations. Examples of this
happening in other high-tax states abound — just ask
California or Connecticut.
The Legislature would do well to focus on the most vital
policy goal coming out of the pandemic — getting
Massachusetts residents back to work. Massachusetts doesn’t
need a job-killing tax scheme that was first hatched seven
years ago; it needs policies that are responsive to today’s
conditions and challenges, in which post-pandemic businesses
and jobs compete with online shopping and opportunities to
work remotely.
Getting the hundreds of thousands of unemployed
Massachusetts residents back to work is also smart policy
for the state’s budget writers. It’s robust growth that
brings multibillion-dollar surpluses that can fund tax
advocates’ priorities.
— Bill Weld is a former
governor of Massachusetts. Karen Andreas is CEO of the North
Shore Chamber of Commerce. Peter Forman is CEO of the South
Shore Chamber of Commerce. Rick Sullivan is president and
CEO of the Western Massachusetts Economic Development
Council.
State House News Service
Friday, May 21, 2021
Weekly Roundup - Don’t Jinx It
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Matt Murphy
More than a year after Gov. Charlie Baker first ordered Bay
State residents to mask up to protect both themselves and
others from a little understood virus sweeping the globe,
the governor on Monday said if (and it's a BIG if) you are
fully vaccinated, you can drop the face covering in time for
the Memorial Day barbecue.
Baker was back from D.C. and clear-eyed about what the
latest guidance on mask wearing and vaccine effectiveness
from the Centers for Disease Control meant for the people
and businesses of Massachusetts.
Time to go back to the way things were, or at least
something more recognizable.
And it's not only masks that are getting shed like a jacket
on the first day temps climb above 65. Baker said on Monday
that along with the rescission of the mask mandate on May
29, all remaining business restrictions, capacity ceilings
and gathering limits would be lifted as well. That's two
months ahead of what Baker had initially been planning for,
and more in line with steps that some other states are
taking.
As for the public health emergency declared last March as
COVID-19 began to spread, no more after June 15.
The governor didn't want to say it, but it sure felt like he
was declaring the pandemic over.
"COVID's a little bit like Michael Myers," Baker said,
chuckling nervously as he compared the virus to the
late-70s, can't-be-killed antagonist in the slasher flick
franchise "Halloween."
When Baker ends the state of emergency, he will also be
giving up the rationale used for countless executive orders
and emergency laws designed to respond and help people and
employers adapt to a new way of semi-quarantined life.
That has created a conundrum for policy makers who must
decide, and decide pretty quickly, what deserves to stay
from the pandemic-era.
House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka
asked for and received a list of executive orders and
emergency regulations that will expire when the public
health emergency ends.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association is among those who
want remote and virtual meeting options to remain in the
toolbox for municipal boards, while Sen. Diana DiZoglio is
helping to lead the charge on Beacon Hill on behalf of
restaurants to keep third-party delivery fees capped and
to-go cocktails on the menu.
DiZoglio has filed a bill to extend both pandemic
accommodations for restaurants beyond the end of the state
of emergency, and has filed a similar budget amendment that
will be debated next week.
"Our local restaurants are depending on us to take immediate
action as they work to remain afloat in this unprecedented
time," DiZoglio said.
The Committee on Election Laws this week also heard
extensive testimony about why voting-by-mail should not be
just a way to avoid coming into contact with other humans
while participating in democracy, but a way to increase
participation in democracy in its own right.
While there's much still to sort through, the Legislature
cleaned three things off its plate this week, finalizing a
borrowing bill to construct a new soldiers' home in Holyoke
and settling on another strategy that will allow businesses
to avoid steep unemployment insurance bill spikes.
The UI fix is the second attempt by Beacon Hill lawmakers to
come to the rescue of employers, but it left some in the
business community feeling still exposed.
Democratic leaders had been waiting to hear from the U.S.
Treasury on whether federal relief funds could be used to
build back depleted unemployment benefit systems, but after
being given the green light by the Biden administration the
bill they crafted didn't rely on any of that money at all -
at least for now.
Instead, the solution they crafted will spread the cost to
employers over 20 years as the state borrows to meet
pandemic benefit obligations that stretched the state
unemployment trust beyond its means.
The UI bill, which Rep. Josh Cutler said the Baker
administration helped to develop, also included the
emergency COVID-19 paid leave program that Baker previously
tried to amend, to no avail.
The House and Senate stuck with the original structure of
the up-to-one-week paid leave program that affords workers
time to quarantine, get immunized or care for a family
member sick with COVID. And municipal employees would still
qualify.
If the Legislature does ultimately decide to spend federal
dollars to help businesses shoulder the heavier burden of UI
system costs, they could always pad the $273 million
supplemental budget Baker filed this week.
That bill uses some federal funds to cover some pandemic
spending, but it's not THE blueprint for how to spend
billions in American Rescue Plan dollars. It would, however,
appropriate $5 million for the new Peace Officer Standards
and Training Commission to get to work certifying law
enforcement officers around the state, and another $12.5
million to implement other aspects of last year's police
accountability law.
Of course, in all the excitement over the prospects of a
summer without worrying about COVID-19, it's easy to forget
that millions of Bay State residents are still not and
cannot be vaccinated.
The state crossed the threshold of 3.3 million fully
vaccinated this week, but children under 12 are still not
eligible for a vaccine and masks will continue to be
required in schools, just not outside at recess.
Masks will also stay the norm in nursing homes and other
congregate care settings, and in many communities of color
vaccination rates continue to trail those of the white
population.
Some people might just keep wearing masks because it makes
them feel safer, and Baker said cities, towns and business
owners that want to move slower and keep requiring masks or
other safety measures are welcome to do so and should be
respected.
Because at the end of the day, people are still contracting
COVID-19, even if the health outcomes are somewhat improved.
On the day, Baker announced the new reopening strategy, 281
new cases of COVID-19 were reported and 336 people were
hospitalized with the virus.
It was the lowest daily case count since Sept. 22.
STORY OF THE WEEK: The beginning of end of the pandemic,
like its arrival, came on abruptly and could take some
getting used to.
State House News Service
Friday, May 21, 2021
Advances - Week of May 23, 2021
After virtually vetting 923 budget amendments over 10 days,
Senate Democrats on Tuesday formally launch debate on a
$47.6 billion annual spending plan. The long review period
should give senators a strong sense of which amendments will
be packed into bundles for approval and rejection, and which
ones will require debate and individual recorded votes to
settle.
Senators are back on their traditional track toward
finishing work on their annual budget before Memorial Day
weekend. After that, the branches will send their differing
budgets to a conference committee. The goal is to have a
budget in place by the July 1 start of fiscal 2022, but
legislators have shown a willingness over the years to
continue working on the budget well past that deadline and
this year's talks may carry added significance as it's
possible that the six-member conference committee, perhaps
in consultation with the Baker administration, might mark up
anticipated revenues substantially based on recent revenue
growth, triggering other pivotal budget decisions.
Pandemic Milestone
This year, the Saturday of the holiday weekend (May 29)
brings an historic end to the remaining COVID-19
restrictions and the arrival of a face covering advisory
that will permit millions of vaccinated individuals to stop
masking up in many situations. The lifting of the final
restrictions will come just ahead of the state reaching its
goal of vaccinating more than 4 million adults, which is
expected by the first week of June.
In the new normal launch on May 29, gathering limits will be
rescinded, capacity limits will vanish, and all industries
will be permitted to reopen, including bars and beer
gardens.
But COVID-19 is still here, spreading at a slower rate and
still causing hospitalizations and deaths, and masks are not
entirely going away. Individuals and businesses are coming
out of the pandemic at different comfort levels, ranging
from jubilant to wary, and infections, vaccinations and
hospitalizations will continue to be tracked to confirm
progress and react to any surprises.
Vaccinations have been widespread and the shots remain
available at nearly 1,000 locations, but there are pockets
of the state where most people have still opted against the
inoculation. Business owners are making their own decisions
about mask-wearing and vaccinations, and municipalities are
free to impose their own rules. In some prominent settings
-- public transportation, health care, and congregate care
settings -- masks will still be required. Face coverings
will also remain required indoors for K-12 staff and
students and early education providers.
The Legislative Agenda
Lawmakers on Thursday sent to Baker's desk a bill (H 3770)
authorizing $400 million in borrowing to build a new Holyoke
Soldiers' Home using a project labor agreement. They added
$200 million in bonding authority for long-term care for
veterans in other parts of the state, including the
establishment of regional or satellite veterans' homes as
well as new or expanded support for community-based care
services and home-based care ...
As the pandemic's last business restrictions come down,
Beacon Hill is clicking through its pandemic era laws and
executive orders to determine how or whether to act upon
measures that have ties to June 15, the date Gov. Baker has
set to lift the March 2020 state of emergency ...
The Legislature is also still trying to erect a paid
COVID-19 leave program, and on Thursday returned that
proposal (H 3702, new text is H 3771) to Gov. Baker after
rejecting his amendments. Baker can now either agree to the
program or veto it, which would likely prompt override
efforts ...
The bill on Baker's desk also addresses a problem he and
many others would like to solve: rising unemployment system
costs that are hitting businesses as they try to regain
their footing ...
Lawmakers are inching closer to possible decisions on the
future of election reforms like mail-in and early voting,
and the possible introduction of a same-day reform that
would allow unregistered voters to register and vote on
Election Day ...
The massive American Rescue Plan Act was intended in part to
stimulate the economy right away, but lawmakers and the
Baker administration remain in only the preliminary stages
of deciding how to allocate billions of dollars outside of
the annual budget process ...
Legislators have also again waved aside calls from municipal
officials for quick passage of an annual local road and
bridge funding bill, which remains in committee well after
the start of the spring construction season ...
Legislators have also kicked the can down the road when it
comes to management of the MBTA. That was a central issue
when the transit failures during the winter of 2015 led to
the creation of the Fiscal and Management Control Board, but
lawmakers have struggled to agree upon the makeup of a
successor board, and their latest decision-making deadline
on that is June 30.
Tuesday, May 25, 2021
SENATE BUDGET SESSION: The Senate launches into its annual
budget debate, still operating under emergency rules that
permit senators to participate remotely. Tuesday's session
will likely run into the evening. (Tuesday, 10 a.m., Senate
Chamber)
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
SENATE BUDGET SESSION: The Senate continues its annual
budget debate, still operating under emergency rules that
permit senators to participate remotely. Wednesday's session
will likely run into the evening. (Wednesday, Time of
session start TBD)
Thursday, May 27, 2021
SENATE BUDGET SESSION: If necessary, the Senate continues
into its annual budget debate, still operating under
emergency rules that permit senators to participate
remotely. (Thursday, Time of session start TBD)
Friday, May 28, 2021
SENATE BUDGET SESSION: If necessary, the Senate continues
into its annual budget debate, still operating under
emergency rules that permit senators to participate
remotely. (Friday, Time of session start TBD)
Saturday, May 29, 2021
FULL REOPENING ARRIVES: Virtually all remaining COVID-19
restrictions will lift on Saturday and the state's face
covering order will be replaced with an advisory as the
Baker administration fully reopens Massachusetts after more
than a year. All industries will be allowed to open and
operate at 100 percent capacity, industry-specific
restrictions will end, and the state will no longer place a
limit on gathering sizes. The new face covering advisory
will encourage those who are not yet vaccinated to continue
wearing masks and distancing in most settings. Masks will
still be required for everyone regardless of vaccination
status on public and private transportation such as MBTA and
rideshares, in health care facilities, congregate care
settings, rehabilitative day services, and for both students
and staff indoors at K-12 schools and early education
providers.
|
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
|
