 |
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, July 12, 2021
Legislature Passes
$48.1B Budget, Larger Than Submitted
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News
Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
More than a week into the fiscal year, the House and
Senate agreed in bipartisan fashion to a $48.1 billion
annual state budget and shipped the proposal to Gov.
Charlie Baker's desk.
Both branches voted unanimously to approve the revised
spending plan, which calls for permanently enshrining
the state's controversial film tax credit program,
continuing to delay implementation of a charitable
giving tax deduction, and setting aside $350 million to
buttress a multi-year education funding reform law.
House Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Aaron
Michlewitz, who co-chaired the conference committee that
resolved differences between the House and Senate budget
proposals, said the vote will "mark a capstone to a
volatile 16-month odyssey we have seen since the
pandemic first struck the commonwealth."
At this time last year, budget writers were fretting a
potential tax revenue implosion and wondering if state
reserves would be enough to hold public services
together. But taxpayers have delivered robust
collections for the state, enabling significant spending
increases and allowing historic deposits into the rainy
day fund.
"We've been through a lot, and we've come out of the
last year and a half in a stronger fiscal situation than
any of us could have ever imagined," Michlewitz, a North
End Democrat, told his colleagues prior to the vote.
Rep. Todd Smola of Warren, one of two Republicans
involved in the budget talks, praised the final accord
as a "culmination of those good working relationships
that we have with one another across the aisle." ...
The bill does not propose any broad-based tax increases,
a fact that Smola highlighted as he warned against
pursuing tax hikes to fund priorities.
"While we have made so many significant investments in
this document, I think it's important to note that we
did it without raising taxes," Smola said. "I hope my
colleagues will pay attention to that as we progress
throughout the course of this term. While with some it
may be desirable to go after the pocketbooks of the men
and women of this commonwealth, I think it's notable to
recognize that through good fiscal policy and strong
management, we are able to invest in these programs that
are critical and do it without going after taxes across
the board."
The $48.07 billion bottom line that budget writers
assigned to their bill differs from the "grand total" of
$50.062 billion included in the actual budget bill. A
House budget aide said the higher figure accounts for
anticipated transfers, such as the planned deposits into
the state's rainy day fund, the $250 million that will
go to pension reserves, and the $350 million targeted
for a Student Opportunity Act reserve.
Lawmakers opted again to postpone the implementation of
a tax deduction designed to increase donations to
charities and non-profit organizations, a move that
officials in the spring said would free up $64 million
to spend. The charitable deduction, approved by voters
statewide in 2000 but then held up by a series of
delays, now will not begin until at least 2023. The
budget bill does not explicitly set a new start date,
and simply says the program "shall not be allowed for
the taxable year beginning Jan. 1, 2022." ...
After tax revenues surged well beyond expectations in
fiscal 2021, the conference committee revised its fiscal
2022 tax collection estimate upward by $4.2 billion,
with much of that revenue used to eliminate the reliance
on one-time revenues in the earlier House and Senate
proposals.
The original budget bills both branches approved this
spring each called for using at least $1.5 billion from
the state's "rainy day" fund, but the conference
committee rewrite cancels that withdrawal.
Lawmakers instead suggest bulking up the savings account
further with $1.1 billion from a surplus in fiscal 2021
and with another $1.2 billion in fiscal 2022, which
officials said would push its total balance to about
$5.8 billion by this time next year. Michlewitz said
that amount would represent "an unparalleled record that
will position the commonwealth to weather any fiscal
troubles that might be before us."
State House News Service
Friday, July 9, 2021
State’s $48.1 Bil Budget
Nets Unanimous, Bipartisan Support
Next Step: Baker's Signature, Vetoes, Amendments
Democrats used some of that flexibility to increase
bottom-line spending by about $300 million, but they
also made an extra $250 million deposit into the pension
fund, created a $350 million Student Opportunity Act
trust fund that can be drawn on in future years, and
invested significantly in the state's "rainy day" fund.
By the time the House and Senate unanimously passed the
budget on Friday, Massachusetts was one of just three
states with a fiscal year that started on July 1 to not
have an annual spending plan in place. But with the bill
now on Gov. Charlie Baker's desk, it's unlikely to be
the last.
The budget conference committee met the 8 p.m. deadline
to file its report in order for the bill to be
considered the following day, as stipulated by joint
rules. But how about 48 hours to read and consider any
piece of legislation before it lands on the House floor
for a vote?
Rep. Christopher Markey thought that sounded like a good
idea when he filed it as an amendment to the proposed
House rules on Wednesday, but it was shot down like
other proposals aimed at increasing transparency in the
House -- most notably a proposal to allow people to know
how lawmakers vote on bills in committee.
State House News Service
Friday, July 9, 2021
Weekly Roundup - Settled Business
House Speaker Ron Mariano's leadership team gave
representatives just a few hours Tuesday to file
amendments to newly proposed House rules, ahead of a
debate that's now scheduled for Wednesday afternoon....
Also on the docket for Wednesday's session is an order
(H 3929) extending the House's emergency rules until
11:59 p.m. Oct. 1, or the adjournment of the Oct. 1
session, whichever is later. Those rules are set to
expire July 15.
An emergency rules extension would mean remote voting
and session participation could continue through
September.
Representatives usually debate proposed rules changes at
the outset of each two-year session, but Mariano this
year postponed debate for several months. The delay gave
lawmakers more time to consider changes in the way the
House operates, but at least one lawmaker objected to
the short window for drafting proposed amendments.
"I now have 3 hours and 30 minutes to go through 115
pages of the new rules package," Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven
tweeted minutes after representatives voted on the
deadline. " ... This is exactly how one of the least
transparent legislatures in the country operates."
State House News Service
Monday, July 7, 2021
House Plan Would Extend Remote
Sessions Through September
The State House will not have a "complete reopening"
before the start of October, Speaker Ronald Mariano said
Wednesday, adding that he is hopeful that the building
will be at least more populated at that point as
legislative leaders target some time in autumn to
welcome the public back to Beacon Hill....
The state capitol has been mostly closed for more than
15 months due to the pandemic, during which the majority
of elected officials have participated remotely in
hearings, sessions and votes.
Gov. Charlie Baker lifted the COVID-19 state of
emergency on June 15, and more than three weeks later,
the State House reopening plans are still murky.
State House News Service
Thursday, July 8, 2021
Mariano: Complete State House
Reopening Not Expected by Oct. 1
It’s always been difficult to find out how House
lawmakers vote on bills in committee, but under a set of
rules scheduled for debate Wednesday it could become
nearly impossible.
The House rules proposal, put forward by Rep. William
Galvin of Canton, the chair of the Rules Committee,
would not identify by name how individual members vote
on committee bills. Instead, aggregate totals would be
provided showing how many committee members voted for or
against a bill or chose not to vote. In other words,
votes on bills in committee would be anonymous.
The legislative proposal is more sweeping than what was
presented in a House rules report issued just last week
by Galvin and Rep. Sarah Peake of Provincetown. Galvin
and Peake recommended what they called a balanced and
nuanced approach to disclosing how members vote on
committee bills – identifying by name only those who
vote against a bill and tallying aggregate numbers for
those voting yes or choosing not to vote....
Sen. Becca Rausch of Needham said in an op-ed published
last year that greater disclosure is the right approach.
“Committee votes matter; they dictate or influence the
outcome of pending legislation, and frequently the
committee vote is the only vote that will happen on a
particular bill,” she said.
Reps. Erika Uyterhoeven of Somerville and Mike Connolly
of Cambridge are pushing the same approach in the House.
They have filed an amendment to the proposed House rules
requiring all votes in committee to be treated like roll
call votes on the House floor – meaning how each member
voted would be publicly disclosed.
Uyterhoeven’s push for similar language in the joint
rules was unsuccessful. At the time, she appealed to the
House for more openness. “The opaque and cumbersome
system begs the question, what do we have to hide, what
do we have to lose, why do we resist making such simple
changes, and, more importantly, why shouldn’t we hold
ourselves to the highest standard?” Uyterhoeven asked.
CommonWealth Magazine
Wednesday, July 7, 2021
House proposal would keep
committee votes secret
The gutless Massachusetts Legislature is showing its true
insides again. Are you surprised?
Democratic lawmakers have rejected real rules reform in the
House, instead bending to the wishes of the all-powerful
House speaker who has no interest in changing the way
business is done.
Term limits for the speaker? Yeah, right.
Giving more time for lawmakers to review complicated pieces
of legislation? C’mon, they already have one actual day to
do that.
Publishing the individual votes of lawmakers in committee?
Ha. Good one.
One lawmaker, Rep. Dan Cahill, D-Lynn, actually claimed that
recording all votes in committees would put an “unfair”
burden on legislative staff. Because they’re so busy all the
time toiling in a part-time Legislature that doesn’t meet on
Mondays and Fridays.
Another lawmaker, Rep. Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown,
contended that giving lawmakers 48 hours to read legislation
instead of 24 hours would “grind things to a halt, slow
things down and leave many important pieces of legislation
in the dustbin.”
Keep in mind, we’re talking one extra day....
The package of alleged rules “reforms” that did pass was
released on Tuesday afternoon, and voted on on Wednesday.
That gave legislators less than 24 hours to try to make
amendments and other changes that never had a chance of
passing anyway.
The eight-year-term limits proposal went down in flames,
35-125. Just three dozen lawmakers, including Republicans,
were brave enough to be recorded in favor of the bill by
Acton Democrat Tami Gouveia, who obviously doesn’t have any
interest in getting choice committee assignments or a
coveted window office....
And if you want to see lawmakers really quake in their
loafers, then make the term limit apply to all lawmakers,
not just the speaker.
Of course, that will never happen. Giving the people too
much power is dangerous to the health and well-being of the
Massachusetts Legislature.
Long live the speaker.
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 9, 2021
Gutless Massachusetts Legislature at it
again
By Joe Battenfeld
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
In the Massachusetts Legislature, the definition of
“broke” is anything that runs counter to the status quo.
Case in point: term limits for the speaker of the House.
The speaker is the wielder of great power: a benefactor
of allies and a vital player in any governor’s efforts
to get things done. The office can also prevent
legislation from moving ahead, even when it might win a
majority of votes on the floor.
Who wouldn’t want to hold on to such a plum gig for as
long as possible?
Thanks to lawmakers, efforts to limit the speaker’s term
in office have been thwarted, again....
Rep. Tami Gouveia (D-Acton) proposed an amendment
Wednesday that would have limited any representative to
serving a maximum of eight consecutive years as speaker,
according to the State House News Service....
“The speaker approves the hiring and firing of our
staff,” Gouveia said. “The speaker decides how many
staff we are allocated and, as a result, how much
support we are able to provide our constituents and
districts. The speaker decides who becomes committee
chairs and vice chairs, determining not only how much
each of us earn to support our families but also how
much influence we have within the Legislature and over
legislation determining our constituents’ safety, health
and ability to prosper.”
It’s good to be king....
The public can be forgiven for being cynical about the
nature of politics — that it is essentially just a bid
to get and preserve power. Who can blame them in light
of such moves?
A Boston Herald editorial
Friday, July 9, 2021
Status quo carries the day at the
Massachusetts State House
If Charlie Baker doesn’t run for a third term, the next
governor’s race will be a free-for-all — just like the
Boston mayor’s race.
If Baker does run, the best word to describe what he
will do is a campaign cliché: He will “romp.”
With help from independent voters who can vote in a
Republican primary, Baker will beat Geoff Diehl, who has
mysteriously decided to come at him from the Donald
Trump wing of the party in a state where Joe Biden won
65 percent of the vote. Then, in the general election,
Baker will beat any of the lefty-loving Democrats
already in the race. If Attorney General Maura Healey
decides to run and is the Democratic nominee, Baker is
still the favorite. AGs don’t move up to governor in
this state, and neither do women. Besides, Healey is
known for suing the Trump administration, not for taking
on the Baker administration.
Of course, in politics anything is possible. But to beat
Baker, a challenger must inspire a massive voter
defection away from a governor who stayed popular no
matter what happened on his watch....
If Baker doesn’t run, he’s a lame duck and the race for
governor is wide open. If he does, he’s governor again —
unless something that hasn’t stuck, finally sticks. The
Massachusetts political world awaits his decision.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, July 7, 2021
If Baker runs for a third term,
he’ll win. Unless...
If Governor Charlie Baker doesn’t run, he’s a lame duck.
If he does, he’s governor again.
By Joan Vennochi
Here are the three words ex-Rep. Geoff Diehl should use
in every speech he makes in his underdog primary
campaign against Gov. Charlie Baker:
Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI).
The TCI is Baker’s latest mad scheme to wreck the
Commonwealth’s economy. He lusts to impose an outrageous
new tax on fuel, on top of the current 24-cent state tax
on a gallon.
According to at least one study, TCI could eventually
tack another 38 cents onto the cost of a gallon of
gasoline. Does that seem like a good idea, given what
the Democrats have already done to gas prices since Jan.
20?
All Diehl has to tell Republican primary voters is this:
“If you support Charlie’s plan to jack up the state’s
gasoline tax by another 38 cents per gallon – with zero
input from either voters or the legislature – then he’s
your man.”
Or: “If you liked 15 months of Charlie’s pointless
lockdowns, you’ll love his 150 percent increase in the
state gasoline tax.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, July 6, 2021
Gas, tax, and TCI — three words Geoff
Diehl can build a campaign on
By Howie Carr
Gov. Charlie Baker still has not announced if he plans
to run for a third term next year, but if he does jump
into the race, he's already got a primary challenger to
contend with: Geoff Diehl.
Diehl served as a state representative for eight years,
helped lead a successful effort on the ballot to repeal
the indexing of the gas tax to inflation, described
himself as a co-chair of Donald Trump’s Massachusetts
campaign in 2016 and ran against Senator Elizabeth
Warren for her seat in 2018. He launched his
gubernatorial bid on Sunday....
Diehl said that, had he been elected to the U.S.
Senate in 2018, he would have voted for the bi-partisan
commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection —
which would have meant breaking with all of his
Republican colleagues in the Senate.
The 2020 election, he said, was not stolen from former
President Donald Trump.
“I don't think it was a stolen election,” Diehl said. “I
just think that, again, at this point, we need to move
forward, stop crying over spilled milk as a Republican
Party and look towards the future.”
WGBH TV
Wednesday, July 7, 2021
Geoff Diehl Makes His Case For Governor,
Shows Some Distance From Trump
Massachusetts voters would
be required to present identification to prove their
identity at polling places, under an initiative petition
that the head of the state Republican Party hopes to
place on the 2022 statewide ballot.
MassGOP Chairman Jim Lyons, a former state
representative, announced the campaign in a Sunday, July
4 email in which he put out the call for at least 2,000
volunteers to help gather enough signatures to qualify
the measure for the ballot.
"What's clear to me, after serving eight years as a
state lawmaker, is that Beacon Hill will never so much
as debate the merits of voter ID laws, and that's why
we're taking this question straight to the people,"
Lyons wrote.
In his email, Lyons linked to a
Monmouth University Polling Institute survey in
which 80 percent of respondents expressed support for
requiring voters to show a photo identification in order
to vote. The telephone poll was conducted from June 9 to
June 14, with 810 adults in the United States.
Beacon Hill Republicans over the years have repeatedly
pushed voter ID bills, which have failed to gain
sufficient support to make it out of the
Democrat-controlled Election Laws Committee. The coming
debate over early voting and mail-in voting could give
voter ID supporters a chance to offer their proposal.
State House News Service
Monday, July 7, 2021
Ballot Campaign Taking Shape For Voter
ID Proposal |
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The House and Senate
unanimously rubber-stamped the budget bill through in under
three hours on Friday after the secret budget conference
committee finally reached agreement on it Thursday evening,
leaving none but committee members even a clue what it
contained. They arrived in the
respective chambers
after 1:00 pm. The Senate voted 40-0 to adopt it at
3:33 pm. The House followed suit voting 159-0 to pass
it at 4:07 pm. It's what Senate Ways and Means Vice
Chair Cindy Friedman last week blithely shrugged off and
everyone recognizes as "standard procedure" on Beacon Hill.
State House News Service in its
Weekly Roundup on Friday pondered
this expedited process as well:
The budget conference committee met
the 8 p.m. deadline to file its report in order for the
bill to be considered the following day, as stipulated
by joint rules. But how about 48 hours to read and
consider any piece of legislation before it lands on the
House floor for a vote?
Rep. Christopher Markey thought
that sounded like a good idea when he filed it as an
amendment to the proposed House rules on Wednesday, but
it was shot down like other proposals aimed at
increasing transparency in the House -- most notably a
proposal to allow people to know how lawmakers vote on
bills in committee.
Do taxpayers really need to pay
for those other 194 legislators not assigned to that
conference committee to wield their limp rubber stamps?
The State House News Service
reported on Friday ("State’s
$48.1 Bil Budget Nets Unanimous, Bipartisan Support"):
The $48.07
billion bottom line that budget writers assigned to
their bill differs from the "grand total" of $50.062
billion included in the actual budget bill. A House
budget aide said the higher figure accounts for
anticipated transfers, such as the planned deposits into
the state's rainy day fund, the $250 million that will
go to pension reserves, and the $350 million targeted
for a Student Opportunity Act reserve.
Remember that both the
House and the
Senate each
passed its own respective FY 2022 budget in May. Both
of those budgets which next went to the secret conference
committee proposed to spend $47.7 Billion.
The state budget which was
rubber-stamped on Friday and rushed off to the governor
spends either $48.07 Billion or $50.062 Billion,
depending on who's talking. Even the lower figure of
$48.07 Billion is more than the $47.7 Billion that went into
that secret conference committee. Spending more is how
a compromise was reached. On Beacon Hill spending more
is called "compromise" to grand applause.
Another example of unique
Beacon Hill "standard procedures" that have become all too
prevalent and accepted in Massachusetts (to remain in favor
of leadership and hang onto those lucrative committee
chairmanships) was reported on Monday by the State House
News Service ("House Plan Would Extend
Remote Sessions Through September"):
House Speaker Ron Mariano's
leadership team gave representatives just a few hours
Tuesday to file amendments to newly proposed House
rules, ahead of a debate that's now scheduled for
Wednesday afternoon....
Also on the docket for Wednesday's
session is an order (H 3929) extending the House's
emergency rules until 11:59 p.m. Oct. 1, or the
adjournment of the Oct. 1 session, whichever is later.
Those rules are set to expire July 15.
An emergency rules extension would
mean remote voting and session participation could
continue through September.
Representatives usually debate
proposed rules changes at the outset of each two-year
session, but Mariano this year postponed debate for
several months. The delay gave lawmakers more time to
consider changes in the way the House operates, but at
least one lawmaker objected to the short window for
drafting proposed amendments.
"I now have 3 hours and 30 minutes
to go through 115 pages of the new rules package," Rep.
Erika Uyterhoeven tweeted minutes after representatives
voted on the deadline. " ... This is exactly how one of
the least transparent legislatures in the country
operates."
To further lighten their
negligible workload and ease any difficult decision, the
News Service reported on Thursday ("Mariano:
Complete State House Reopening Not Expected by Oct. 1"):
The State House will not have a
"complete reopening" before the start of October,
Speaker Ronald Mariano said Wednesday, adding that he is
hopeful that the building will be at least more
populated at that point as legislative leaders target
some time in autumn to welcome the public back to Beacon
Hill....
The state capitol has been mostly
closed for more than 15 months due to the pandemic,
during which the majority of elected officials have
participated remotely in hearings, sessions and votes.
Gov. Charlie Baker lifted the
COVID-19 state of emergency on June 15, and more than
three weeks later, the State House reopening plans are
still murky.
Again I ask, "Do taxpayers really need to pay for those
other 194 legislators not assigned to that conference
committee to wield their limp rubber stamps?"
In the last CLT Update I
noted:
"What's the holdup?"
Legislators have settled into
the ease and comfort of "legislating" and voting from
their homes or outside businesses.
Preordained outcomes of most if not all bills, concocted by
a few in leadership, that manage to actually come up for a
rare roll call vote with the tired rubber-stamp outcome
hardly justifies travel to the State House these days.
Most legislators are perfectly
content to just phone it in, and collect their generous pay
checks. Content especially since that
obscene pay grab the Legislature took for itself in 2017,
which included ending legislators' documented per-miles
traveled when the Legislature was in session as a reimbursable expense for
commuting to and from the
State House — was replaced by a
tax-free flat $15,000 per year for those living within 50 miles of
the State House, $20,000 for legislators living beyond 50
miles. Today they collect that lucrative "travel expense"
whether or not they ever leave home or appear in the State
House.
Boston Globe veteran columnist Joan Vennochi on
Wednesday wrote ("If Baker runs for
a third term, he’ll win. Unless...If Governor Charlie
Baker doesn’t run, he’s a lame duck. If he does, he’s
governor again
. . . With help from independent
voters who can vote in a Republican primary, Baker will
beat Geoff Diehl, who has mysteriously decided to come
at him from the Donald Trump wing of the party in a
state where Joe Biden won 65 percent of the vote. Then,
in the general election, Baker will beat any of the
lefty-loving Democrats already in the race. If Attorney
General Maura Healey decides to run and is the
Democratic nominee, Baker is still the favorite. AGs
don’t move up to governor in this state, and neither do
women. Besides, Healey is known for suing the Trump
administration, not for taking on the Baker
administration.
Of course, in politics anything is
possible. But to beat Baker, a challenger must inspire a
massive voter defection away from a governor who stayed
popular no matter what happened on his watch....
If Baker doesn’t run, he’s a lame
duck and the race for governor is wide open. If he does,
he’s governor again — unless something that hasn’t
stuck, finally sticks. The Massachusetts political world
awaits his decision.
Vennochi recognizes the dark reality of Massachusetts
primary elections; exactly
the point I made in the last CLT Update:
In Kentucky
only registered Republicans are allowed to vote in a
Republican primary; same with Democrats, and unenrolled/unaffiliated
voters are not allowed to vote in primary elections at
all. I've always thought that's how it should be so as
to eliminate political mischief. With unenrolled voters
in Massachusetts making up the vast majority and allowed
to take a Republican primary ballot and choose the GOP's
candidate to go up against the Democrat nominee who
knows what the outcome will be.
On the topic of "dark reality,"
what's with Geoff Diehl already distancing himself from
Donald Trump? On Wednesday evening he was a guest on
WGBH TV2's "Greater Boston," were he was interviewed by
former CLT nemesis Jim Braude. GBH reported ("Geoff
Diehl Makes His Case For Governor, Shows Some Distance From
Trump"):
Diehl served as a state
representative for eight years, helped lead a successful
effort on the ballot to repeal the indexing of the gas
tax to inflation, described himself as a co-chair of
Donald Trump’s Massachusetts campaign in 2016 and ran
against Senator Elizabeth Warren for her seat in 2018.
He launched his gubernatorial bid on Sunday....
Diehl said that, had he been elected to the U.S.
Senate in 2018, he would have voted for the bi-partisan
commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection —
which would have meant breaking with all of his
Republican colleagues in the Senate.
The 2020 election, he said, was not
stolen from former President Donald Trump.
“I don't think it was a stolen
election,” Diehl said. “I just think that, again, at
this point, we need to move forward, stop crying over
spilled milk as a Republican Party and look towards the
future.”
This statement by Diehl is not
an auspicious start to his campaign if he hopes to attract a
conservative base of support, especially the MAGA audience.
I wish Jim Braude had asked how he would have voted on
President Trump's sham impeachments had he been in the
Senate at the time. Massachusetts Republicans sure
don't need another Mitt Romney!
And speaking of Massachusetts
Republicans, party chairman Jim Lyons (any doubt he's a
conservative?) announced a ballot campaign to pass a law
requiring presentation of a voter ID in order to cast a
vote. According to a State House News Service report
last Monday ("Ballot Campaign Taking Shape
For Voter ID Proposal"):
Massachusetts voters would
be required to present identification to prove their
identity at polling places, under an initiative petition
that the head of the state Republican Party hopes to
place on the 2022 statewide ballot.
MassGOP Chairman Jim Lyons, a
former state representative, announced the campaign in a
Sunday, July 4 email in which he put out the call for at
least 2,000 volunteers to help gather enough signatures
to qualify the measure for the ballot.
"What's clear to me, after serving
eight years as a state lawmaker, is that Beacon Hill
will never so much as debate the merits of voter ID
laws, and that's why we're taking this question straight
to the people," Lyons wrote.
In his email, Lyons linked to a
Monmouth University Polling Institute survey in
which 80 percent of respondents expressed support for
requiring voters to show a photo identification in order
to vote. The telephone poll was conducted from June 9 to
June 14, with 810 adults in the United States.
Beacon Hill Republicans over the
years have repeatedly pushed voter ID bills, which have
failed to gain sufficient support to make it out of the
Democrat-controlled Election Laws Committee. The coming
debate over early voting and mail-in voting could give
voter ID supporters a chance to offer their proposal.
I always assumed identification
was required in Massachusetts if one is to register to vote
(it was a long time ago when I did), though I don't recall
being asked to present ID at the polling places when I
voted. I can't say I'm surprised it's not a
requirement, but I also can't say that Democrats need to
indulge in election fraud to win elections in Massachusetts
or that voter ID will make much if any difference in
election outcomes. Nonetheless, it ought to be a
requirement.
The Washington DC-based Tax
Foundation last Monday released its report "How
High Are Property Taxes in Your State?" by Janelle
Cammenga. Thanks to CLT's Proposition 2½
and its property tax increase limitation of 2.5% maximum per
year its ranking is #18 (highest of 50 states). Before
Prop 2½ was overwhelmingly adopted by the voters on the 1980
ballot the Bay State always ranked among the top four or
five highest property-taxed states.
In the
CLT Update of May 31 I passed along a report "What
Americans Will Pay in Taxes Over a Lifetime," which
ranked Massachusetts at the second-highest of 50 states.
I wrote: "Whenever
comparisons such as this are available I can't help but
compare what I know from my own experience." Note in
this Tax Foundation report that while Massachusetts ranks
18th-highest for its property tax Kentucky comes in at #31.
"It doesn't need to be 'The
Massachusetts Way'"!
I was paying $6,000 for my
property tax every year to the Town of Marblehead.
Since escaping to Kentucky my annual property tax bill has
been reduced by 75% to about $1,500 —
and it's collected once a year, not quarterly. My one
annual property tax payment today is equal to what I paid
every three months doing it The Massachusetts Way!
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
Full News Reports
(excerpted above) |
|
State House News Service
Friday, July 9, 2021
State’s $48.1 Bil Budget Nets Unanimous, Bipartisan Support
Next Step: Baker's Signature, Vetoes, Amendments
By Chris Lisinski
More than a week into the fiscal year, the House and Senate
agreed in bipartisan fashion to a $48.1 billion annual state
budget and shipped the proposal to Gov. Charlie Baker's
desk.
Both branches voted unanimously to approve the revised
spending plan, which calls for permanently enshrining the
state's controversial film tax credit program, continuing to
delay implementation of a charitable giving tax deduction,
and setting aside $350 million to buttress a multi-year
education funding reform law.
House Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Aaron Michlewitz,
who co-chaired the conference committee that resolved
differences between the House and Senate budget proposals,
said the vote will "mark a capstone to a volatile 16-month
odyssey we have seen since the pandemic first struck the
commonwealth."
At this time last year, budget writers were fretting a
potential tax revenue implosion and wondering if state
reserves would be enough to hold public services together.
But taxpayers have delivered robust collections for the
state, enabling significant spending increases and allowing
historic deposits into the rainy day fund.
"We've been through a lot, and we've come out of the last
year and a half in a stronger fiscal situation than any of
us could have ever imagined," Michlewitz, a North End
Democrat, told his colleagues prior to the vote.
Rep. Todd Smola of Warren, one of two Republicans involved
in the budget talks, praised the final accord as a
"culmination of those good working relationships that we
have with one another across the aisle."
While all 160 representatives and 40 senators voted to
accept the conference committee budget, two Senate Democrats
running for higher office criticized some aspects of the
spending plan before approving it.
Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Jamaica Plain Democrat vying for
the gubernatorial nomination, said there were "a few items
that give me real concern," including the decision to shift
$350 million into a reserve for later years of the Student
Opportunity Act.
The budget funds one-sixth of that $1.5 billion school
funding reform law, approved in 2019, after the pandemic
disrupted its original seven-year implementation timeline.
Chang-Diaz said she believes the Legislature should have
used part of the $350 million fund to immediately increase
school funding this year, particularly as districts attempt
to recover from more than a year of pandemic-fueled
upheaval.
"If districts have to engage in accounting acrobatics to
figure out how to stretch their one-time (American Rescue
Plan Act) money to cover operational costs that the state is
dropping the ball on, that means they're not moving to spend
the recovery money now to meet the needs of the moment,"
Chang-Diaz said. "That will be an awful and avoidable shame
on our commonwealth."
State auditor candidate and Methuen Democrat Sen. Diana
DiZoglio slammed the final budget for dropping language that
would have required a study on allowing legislative staffers
to get health insurance through the state Group Insurance
Commission. She also jabbed at leaders for scheduling a vote
on the compromise less than a day after the conference
committee submitted its report.
"This is occurring yet again, positioning members to vote on
something we did not get adequate time to review. It's not
acceptable," DiZoglio said. "If we keep doing this over and
over again, it's not going to become magically acceptable."
Legislative negotiators found compromise on the multiple
policy areas that separated the House and Senate budget
bills, including the future of a program offering tax
credits to film and television productions in Massachusetts.
Supporters praise the program as an economic boon, while
opponents contend it siphons resources away from the Bay
State with insufficient returns.
The House voted unanimously in April to eliminate the sunset
date altogether, while the Senate voted to push it back four
years while imposing several additional eligibility
requirements on the tax credits.
In their compromise, the Legislature agreed to make the
credit permanent while imposing one of the Senate-backed
changes. Production companies would now be required to
conduct at least 75 percent of their principal photography
days or spend at least 75 percent of their budget in
Massachusetts, up from 50 percent currently.
"Thanks to the legislature's action today, Massachusetts
will be poised and ready to capture the growing streaming TV
industry that will bring even more good-paying jobs to
Massachusetts for years to come, employ more local workers,
and spend millions of dollars with more local businesses,"
said David Hartman, executive director of the Massachusetts
Production Coalition.
The final budget does not include Senate-authorized language
allowing the purchase of Massachusetts Lottery products with
debit cards, which that branch and Gov. Charlie Baker have
both unsuccessfully sought in previous spending bills.
Negotiators also dropped another section from the Senate
budget that would have increased the per-ride fees imposed
on ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft.
The bill does not propose any broad-based tax increases, a
fact that Smola highlighted as he warned against pursuing
tax hikes to fund priorities.
"While we have made so many significant investments in this
document, I think it's important to note that we did it
without raising taxes," Smola said. "I hope my colleagues
will pay attention to that as we progress throughout the
course of this term. While with some it may be desirable to
go after the pocketbooks of the men and women of this
commonwealth, I think it's notable to recognize that through
good fiscal policy and strong management, we are able to
invest in these programs that are critical and do it without
going after taxes across the board."
The $48.07 billion bottom line that budget writers assigned
to their bill differs from the "grand total" of $50.062
billion included in the actual budget bill. A House budget
aide said the higher figure accounts for anticipated
transfers, such as the planned deposits into the state's
rainy day fund, the $250 million that will go to pension
reserves, and the $350 million targeted for a Student
Opportunity Act reserve.
Lawmakers opted again to postpone the implementation of a
tax deduction designed to increase donations to charities
and non-profit organizations, a move that officials in the
spring said would free up $64 million to spend. The
charitable deduction, approved by voters statewide in 2000
but then held up by a series of delays, now will not begin
until at least 2023. The budget bill does not explicitly set
a new start date, and simply says the program "shall not be
allowed for the taxable year beginning Jan. 1, 2022."
Jim Klocke, CEO of the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network, said
both chambers had agreed to delay implementation of the
deduction, so it wasn't subject to negotiation. But Klocke
said the tax policy should move forward.
"We think the state's strong revenue growth opens the door
to implementing the state charitable deduction," he said.
"We understood the need to delay it during the pandemic. But
now we're in a better place and now we should move to
implement the deduction."
Klocke predicted the deduction would benefit hundreds of
thousands of taxpayers, most of whom have low or mid-level
incomes, while promoting donations "to all types of
nonprofits that have been doing so much to address our
health, racial equity and opportunity challenges."
The compromise spending plan would also convert a child care
tax deduction into a refundable credit, a $16.3 million
proposal that Senate leaders have said would offer an
average credit of $190 to about 85,000 low-income families.
After tax revenues surged well beyond expectations in fiscal
2021, the conference committee revised its fiscal 2022 tax
collection estimate upward by $4.2 billion, with much of
that revenue used to eliminate the reliance on one-time
revenues in the earlier House and Senate proposals.
The original budget bills both branches approved this spring
each called for using at least $1.5 billion from the state's
"rainy day" fund, but the conference committee rewrite
cancels that withdrawal.
Lawmakers instead suggest bulking up the savings account
further with $1.1 billion from a surplus in fiscal 2021 and
with another $1.2 billion in fiscal 2022, which officials
said would push its total balance to about $5.8 billion by
this time next year. Michlewitz said that amount would
represent "an unparalleled record that will position the
commonwealth to weather any fiscal troubles that might be
before us."
"Achieving a balance well in excess of $5 billion is a
critical goal for the Commonwealth as we build our economic
recovery and prepare for future challenges," the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation wrote in a report about
the budget redraft.
Other budget highlights include $20 million to increase
provider rates at early education and care centers, $13
million for offshore wind career training, and a $40 million
reserve to help K-12 districts impacted by pandemic-related
enrollment changes.
One section of the budget will create new statewide
standards for certifying U-visa and T-visa applications for
survivors of violent crime and human trafficking, according
to Sen. Mark Montigny, who also filed the measures as a
standalone bill.
"These protections for victims and survivors are long
overdue," Montigny said in a statement. "We know from
talking with advocates and community partners that this type
of violence has thrived during the pandemic, which has
inflicted intense financial pressures, family illness,
heightened workplace demands, and increased levels of
isolation. I hope that our action today will provide
enhanced access to the resources and protections necessary
to escape such abuse, especially at a time when immigrants
have been the target of intense fear mongering and attacks
in our political discourse."
— Michael P. Norton and Sam
Doran contributed reporting.
State House News Service
Friday, July 9, 2021
Weekly Roundup - Settled Business
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Matt Murphy
There were supposed to be cows and chickens and plenty of
photo-ops.
Rep. Aaron Michlewitz and Sen. Michael Rodrigues were
scheduled to spend Friday with more than three dozen of
their legislative colleagues, touring a series of farms in
western Massachusetts to see firsthand the challenges facing
the state's agricultural entrepreneurs.
But the legislative remake of "City Slickers" was not to be,
washed out by a combination of Tropical Storm Elsa and
fiscal responsibilities that conspired to keep the North End
and Westport Democrats on Beacon Hill explaining the
intricacies of a $48.1 billion budget deal to their
respective branches.
"We've been through a lot, and we've come out of the last
year and a half in a stronger fiscal situation than any of
us could have ever imagined," Michlewitz told his colleagues
from the House floor while introducing the bill on Friday
afternoon.
Eight days late but nowhere near a dollar short, the
conference committee led by the two Ways and Means chairmen
filed a compromise budget on Thursday that tried to account
for months of surging tax collections by slotting an
additional $4.2 billion more into the revenue column for the
fiscal 2022 state budget.
Democrats used some of that flexibility to increase
bottom-line spending by about $300 million, but they also
made an extra $250 million deposit into the pension fund,
created a $350 million Student Opportunity Act trust fund
that can be drawn on in future years, and invested
significantly in the state's "rainy day" fund.
By the time the House and Senate unanimously passed the
budget on Friday, Massachusetts was one of just three states
with a fiscal year that started on July 1 to not have an
annual spending plan in place. But with the bill now on Gov.
Charlie Baker's desk, it's unlikely to be the last.
The budget conference committee met the 8 p.m. deadline to
file its report in order for the bill to be considered the
following day, as stipulated by joint rules. But how about
48 hours to read and consider any piece of legislation
before it lands on the House floor for a vote?
Rep. Christopher Markey thought that sounded like a good
idea when he filed it as an amendment to the proposed House
rules on Wednesday, but it was shot down like other
proposals aimed at increasing transparency in the House -
most notably a proposal to allow people to know how
lawmakers vote on bills in committee.
That issue of making committee votes public remains a live
one in talks between the House and Senate regarding separate
rules governing the more active, policy-making joint
committees, and this week's votes gave little indication
that House leaders were prepared to budge.
The new House rules won't take effect until October, and in
the interim the branch voted to extend its emergency
pandemic rules that allow lawmakers to stay away from the
State House and participate remotely.
For all the noise made and sweating caused by groups like
Act on Mass over transparency, reform advocates were unable
to attract more than a few votes from progressives like Rep.
Erika Uyterhoeven of Somerville and Rep. Mike Connolly of
Cambridge, or Rep. Tami Gouveia, who is already on her way
out to run for lieutenant governor. They actually found more
common cause with Republicans.
Even Progressive Caucus leaders like Rep. Jack Lewis argued
against one of the reformers top priorities - the
reinstatement of term limits on the speaker.
If progressive advocates can't sway House leadership, does
Baker have a chance? The Republican governor continued his
ARPA offensive, deploying two Cabinet secretaries to pitch
the virtues of his $2.9 billion plan to spend a little more
than half of American Rescue Plan Act stimulus money that's
sitting in a fund.
Administration and finance officials went first, selling the
$1 billion plan to tackle myriad housing problems in
Massachusetts, followed at the end of the week by energy and
environmental officials who extolled the importance of
proposed investments in, well, the environment, and said
climate problems demand solutions now.
Mariano said Baker's plan would get its due when hearings
kick off this month, but the Republican governor has found a
few people who might be in his corner.
Rep. Bud Williams, the vice chair of the Black and Latino
Legislative Caucus, has seldom been shy about his affection
for the governor, and didn't hold back during an event in
Springfield focused on a summer recreation program for urban
youth.
The Democrat gave the governor "all A-pluses this semester"
as he praised his commitment to fostering homeownership for
people of color.
"Let's get behind this man. Homeownership. We have to create
wealth," Williams said.
Even Attorney General Maura Healey threw her support behind
Baker's idea to use some of the money for behavioral health
and substance abuse, making a rare joint appearance with the
governor to announce a settlement with Purdue Pharma and the
Sackler family.
If Healey and Baker do both run for governor next year,
remember July 8. Baker had plenty of kind words for Healey's
stick-to-it-ness and her team's ability to extract
additional concessions from the Oxycontin manufacturer after
Massachusetts and two dozen other states rejected an earlier
bankruptcy settlement offer.
The new agreement being presented for the court's review
would see Purdue Pharma dissolved, the Sacklers pay $4.3
billion to states and victims' families and millions of
documents released disclosing marketing and sales strategies
for the addictive opioid. Massachusetts would receive $90
million for substance use treatment and prevention.
A highlight of her two terms in office, the Purdue Pharma
litigation will be front and center should she decide to run
for governor next year. But as she weighs her options and,
perhaps, waits to see what Baker does, former state Rep.
Geoff Diehl decided he was done assessing his odds.
Diehl, a Whitman Republican and former Trump surrogate in
Massachusetts, launched his campaign for the Republican
nomination on July 4th.
Diehl has run and lost for state Senate and U.S. Senate
since first entering public office, but now has his eyes set
on breaking the losing streak and putting his desk in the
corner office.
He said had he been governor these past few years,
Massachusetts never would have signed up for the multi-state
Transportation Climate Initiative, which is projected to
increase gas prices over time, and schools and businesses
would have opened much sooner during the pandemic.
Whether there's a conservative lane that leads to the
governor's office can be debated, but Diehl will surely keep
Baker or Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito on their toes, depending on
who runs.
Meanwhile, Transportation for Massachusetts head Christopher
Dempsey stepped down from the advocacy group this week to
focus officially on a run for auditor in 2022.
But before that contest, it appears there may be a special
election brewing in the First Suffolk and Middlesex Senate
District where Sen Joseph Boncore has been calling close
friends and colleagues with the news that he expects to be
named the next CEO of the Massachusetts Biotechnology
Council.
First Bob DeLeo and now Boncore. The winds of change are
blowing in Winthrop.
STORY OF THE WEEK: To quote Rep. Todd Smola, the ranking
Republican on Ways and Means, it was late but "close
enough." The House and Senate unanimously pass a $48.1
billion budget for fiscal 2022.
State House News Service
Monday, July 7, 2021
House Plan Would Extend Remote Sessions Through September
By Sam Doran
House Speaker Ron Mariano's leadership team gave
representatives just a few hours Tuesday to file amendments
to newly proposed House rules, ahead of a debate that's now
scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.
House Democrats teed up the rules package (H 3930) and
adopted an order setting a 5 p.m. amendment deadline shortly
before 1:30 p.m.
Also on the docket for Wednesday's session is an order (H
3929) extending the House's emergency rules until 11:59 p.m.
Oct. 1, or the adjournment of the Oct. 1 session, whichever
is later. Those rules are set to expire July 15.
An emergency rules extension would mean remote voting and
session participation could continue through September.
Representatives usually debate proposed rules changes at the
outset of each two-year session, but Mariano this year
postponed debate for several months. The delay gave
lawmakers more time to consider changes in the way the House
operates, but at least one lawmaker objected to the short
window for drafting proposed amendments.
"I now have 3 hours and 30 minutes to go through 115 pages
of the new rules package," Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven tweeted
minutes after representatives voted on the deadline. " ...
This is exactly how one of the least transparent
legislatures in the country operates."
Roll calls start at 1 p.m. on Wednesday. House Democrats
will meet privately in a caucus at 12 noon.
State House News Service
Thursday, July 8, 2021
Mariano: Complete State House Reopening Not Expected by Oct.
1
By Chris Lisinski
The State House will not have a "complete reopening" before
the start of October, Speaker Ronald Mariano said Wednesday,
adding that he is hopeful that the building will be at least
more populated at that point as legislative leaders target
some time in autumn to welcome the public back to Beacon
Hill.
While introducing a package of House rules for debate
Wednesday, House Speaker Pro Tempore Kate Hogan -- the
chamber's number-three Democrat -- said their Oct. 1
effective date "will coincide with the timeline of the
reopening of the State House."
However, asked if Hogan's description was accurate, Mariano
replied, "No, not a complete reopening."
"The hope would be that we would have people in the building
before then, and by Oct. 1, we should be able to give a
pretty accurate prediction on when we would reopen the
building," he said. "It'll be done in stages, I think, is
the most intelligent way to do this."
The state capitol has been mostly closed for more than 15
months due to the pandemic, during which the majority of
elected officials have participated remotely in hearings,
sessions and votes.
Gov. Charlie Baker lifted the COVID-19 state of emergency on
June 15, and more than three weeks later, the State House
reopening plans are still murky.
"It's a pretty big task, a little bit bigger than people
think," Mariano told reporters, referencing the 40 senators
and 160 representatives who will each have at least one
staffer back at work. "If you're bringing 40 people in with
an aide, that's a little bit easier than 320. I want to make
sure there's no significant mistakes."
Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka said on June 30
they were developing a "comprehensive and nuanced reopening
plan" to bring more employees and outsiders back in the
fall, but they did not offer more details on a date.
CommonWealth Magazine
Wednesday, July 7, 2021
House proposal would keep committee votes secret
By Bruce Mohl – CommonWealth editor
It’s always been difficult to find out how House lawmakers
vote on bills in committee, but under a set of rules
scheduled for debate Wednesday it could become nearly
impossible.
The House rules proposal, put forward by Rep. William Galvin
of Canton, the chair of the Rules Committee, would not
identify by name how individual members vote on committee
bills. Instead, aggregate totals would be provided showing
how many committee members voted for or against a bill or
chose not to vote. In other words, votes on bills in
committee would be anonymous.
The legislative proposal is more sweeping than what was
presented in a House rules report issued just last week by
Galvin and Rep. Sarah Peake of Provincetown. Galvin and
Peake recommended what they called a balanced and nuanced
approach to disclosing how members vote on committee bills –
identifying by name only those who vote against a bill and
tallying aggregate numbers for those voting yes or choosing
not to vote.
“A committee vote is reflective of a specific proposal at a
moment in time during the committee process and
policy-development stage of legislation,” the two lawmakers
wrote in their report. “Support or opposition can and should
change as the legislation is refined through the committee
process and as members learn more about any given topic from
colleagues, experts, and the public.”
The House rules would apply to only House committees. Joint
rules, which apply to joint committees of the House and
Senate, have been stuck in a conference committee made up of
members of both branches for months. The two branches are
split on making votes public, with the Senate favoring
identifying how lawmakers vote on committee bills, while the
House favors more limited disclosure.
Sen. Becca Rausch of Needham said in an op-ed published last
year that greater disclosure is the right approach.
“Committee votes matter; they dictate or influence the
outcome of pending legislation, and frequently the committee
vote is the only vote that will happen on a particular
bill,” she said.
Reps. Erika Uyterhoeven of Somerville and Mike Connolly of
Cambridge are pushing the same approach in the House. They
have filed an amendment to the proposed House rules
requiring all votes in committee to be treated like roll
call votes on the House floor – meaning how each member
voted would be publicly disclosed.
Uyterhoeven’s push for similar language in the joint rules
was unsuccessful. At the time, she appealed to the House for
more openness. “The opaque and cumbersome system begs the
question, what do we have to hide, what do we have to lose,
why do we resist making such simple changes, and, more
importantly, why shouldn’t we hold ourselves to the highest
standard?” Uyterhoeven asked.
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 9, 2021
Gutless Massachusetts Legislature at it again
By Joe Battenfeld
The gutless Massachusetts Legislature is showing its true
insides again. Are you surprised?
Democratic lawmakers have rejected real rules reform in the
House, instead bending to the wishes of the all-powerful
House speaker who has no interest in changing the way
business is done.
Term limits for the speaker? Yeah, right.
Giving more time for lawmakers to review complicated pieces
of legislation? C’mon, they already have one actual day to
do that.
Publishing the individual votes of lawmakers in committee?
Ha. Good one.
One lawmaker, Rep. Dan Cahill, D-Lynn, actually claimed that
recording all votes in committees would put an “unfair”
burden on legislative staff. Because they’re so busy all the
time toiling in a part-time Legislature that doesn’t meet on
Mondays and Fridays.
Another lawmaker, Rep. Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown,
contended that giving lawmakers 48 hours to read legislation
instead of 24 hours would “grind things to a halt, slow
things down and leave many important pieces of legislation
in the dustbin.”
Keep in mind, we’re talking one extra day.
Some good government types were naive enough to think that
things would change when longtime Speaker Robert DeLeo
stepped down.
They haven’t, of course.
New Speaker Ronald Mariano of Quincy is just as consumed
with protecting his own power as his predecessors.
The package of alleged rules “reforms” that did pass was
released on Tuesday afternoon, and voted on on Wednesday.
That gave legislators less than 24 hours to try to make
amendments and other changes that never had a chance of
passing anyway.
The eight-year-term limits proposal went down in flames,
35-125. Just three dozen lawmakers, including Republicans,
were brave enough to be recorded in favor of the bill by
Acton Democrat Tami Gouveia, who obviously doesn’t have any
interest in getting choice committee assignments or a
coveted window office.
Gouveia is actually running for state auditor, so that
explains her sudden interest in rules reform. Just five
other Democrats, most of them progressives, voted to restore
the term limit for House speaker.
Opponents of the term limit argued that it was undemocratic
and would make the speaker a “lame duck,” We’re talking
eight years, here, people.
And besides, they argued, they haven’t heard any of their
constituents clamoring for a term limit.
Here’s a daring idea — go ahead and put the term limit
proposal on the statewide ballot. Then we’ll see what their
constituents really think.
And if you want to see lawmakers really quake in their
loafers, then make the term limit apply to all lawmakers,
not just the speaker.
Of course, that will never happen. Giving the people too
much power is dangerous to the health and well-being of the
Massachusetts Legislature.
Long live the speaker.
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 9, 2021
A Boston Herald editorial
Status quo carries the day at the Massachusetts State House
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
In the Massachusetts Legislature, the definition of “broke”
is anything that runs counter to the status quo.
Case in point: term limits for the speaker of the House.
The speaker is the wielder of great power: a benefactor of
allies and a vital player in any governor’s efforts to get
things done. The office can also prevent legislation from
moving ahead, even when it might win a majority of votes on
the floor.
Who wouldn’t want to hold on to such a plum gig for as long
as possible?
Thanks to lawmakers, efforts to limit the speaker’s term in
office have been thwarted, again.
Rep. Tami Gouveia (D-Acton) proposed an amendment Wednesday
that would have limited any representative to serving a
maximum of eight consecutive years as speaker, according to
the State House News Service.
Gouveia and her allies said they were not taking aim
personally at Speaker Ronald Mariano or his predecessor,
former Speaker Robert DeLeo, who wielded the gavel for 12
years. Gouveia said she wanted to create “a safety mechanism
to ensure that the transfer of power occurs within a
reasonable timeframe” and to create greater opportunity for
women or people of color to lead the chamber.
“The speaker approves the hiring and firing of our staff,”
Gouveia said. “The speaker decides how many staff we are
allocated and, as a result, how much support we are able to
provide our constituents and districts. The speaker decides
who becomes committee chairs and vice chairs, determining
not only how much each of us earn to support our families
but also how much influence we have within the Legislature
and over legislation determining our constituents’ safety,
health and ability to prosper.”
It’s good to be king.
Only six Democrats voted to restore a term limit on the
speaker. Every Republican except Rep. Sheila Harrington of
Groton joined them in support.
Clearly the House likes to stay in its comfort zone, as it
also nixed proposed changes aimed at publicizing more
information about committee votes, and granting lawmakers
and the public additional time to review legislation.
Critics of the House have often complained that the
Democrats in charge take a top-down and secretive approach,
with most work done behind closed doors.
“House leadership and a lot of rank and file Democrats in
the House showed today they will go to pretty enormous
lengths to preserve their power,” Ella McDonald,
communications director for the Act on Mass group, said in
an interview.
The public can be forgiven for being cynical about the
nature of politics — that it is essentially just a bid to
get and preserve power. Who can blame them in light of such
moves?
Mariano was asked if he intended to remain speaker for more
than eight years. His reply: “Eight years? Who knows.”
“I’ve been here 30 years. I’ve been through three or four
speaker fights. As soon as you swear in a speaker, the next
speaker fight starts, whether you want to admit it or not.
It’s just the fact, the nature of this place.”
As the Herald reported, When Mattapan’s Rep. Russell Holmes
was running for speaker in December, he said he’d look to
decentralize power, bring the speaker’s pay back down toward
the level of the other representatives and make the
processes for everything from getting parking spaces and
staff members to acquiring committee chairmanships more
transparent.
“It can’t just be more backroom deals,” Holmes said.
He dropped his bid for the seat, which went to Mariano, an
ally of former Speaker Robert DeLeo.
It’s the nature of the place.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, July 7, 2021
If Baker runs for a third term, he’ll win. Unless...
If Governor Charlie Baker doesn’t run, he’s a lame duck. If
he does, he’s governor again.
By Joan Vennochi
If Charlie Baker doesn’t run for a third term, the next
governor’s race will be a free-for-all — just like the
Boston mayor’s race.
If Baker does run, the best word to describe what he will do
is a campaign cliché: He will “romp.”
With help from independent voters who can vote in a
Republican primary, Baker will beat Geoff Diehl, who has
mysteriously decided to come at him from the Donald Trump
wing of the party in a state where Joe Biden won 65 percent
of the vote. Then, in the general election, Baker will beat
any of the lefty-loving Democrats already in the race. If
Attorney General Maura Healey decides to run and is the
Democratic nominee, Baker is still the favorite. AGs don’t
move up to governor in this state, and neither do women.
Besides, Healey is known for suing the Trump administration,
not for taking on the Baker administration.
Of course, in politics anything is possible. But to beat
Baker, a challenger must inspire a massive voter defection
away from a governor who stayed popular no matter what
happened on his watch.
A long-running State Police overtime scandal led to the
criminal indictments of a circle of implicated troopers, and
a reform effort that has already been called out as flawed.
The Registry of Motor Vehicles failed to act on thousands of
violations committed by Massachusetts drivers, allowing
dangerous drivers to stay on the road, including one who is
charged with crashing into a group of motorcyclists in New
Hampshire and killing seven of them. At the Holyoke
Soldiers’ Home, at least 76 veterans died of COVID-19 under
the leadership of a politically connected superintendent who
was interviewed by Baker for the job. State officials whose
job it is to protect vulnerable children admitted that
failures in the system led to the death of David Almond, an
autistic 14-year-old boy from Fall River. After a still
unexplained derailment, a fleet of new Orange and Red Line
cars have been pulled from service on the MBTA.
No matter what the management crisis, Baker’s favorability
rating stayed strong. The one thing that nicked it was a
COVID-19 vaccine website crash that affected the over-60
set. Once jabbed, however, the boomers were happy. Maybe
voters content with Baker is a sign of lowered expectations
for what government in general can deliver — or maybe it’s
just the aura of capability that goes with being tall. To
me, it’s odd that a governor who touts management as his
specialty gets a pass on management. But to borrow from a
higher authority, who am I to judge? Based on polling,
Massachusetts voters think the ship of state is headed in
the right direction.
It’s all up to Baker. Is he tired of protesters marching in
front of his Swampscott home? Is escape possible via a
bipartisan appointment somewhere in the Biden
administration? Is the private sector a lure or a bore? Who
wants to bet that running and winning, while defying the
critics inside his own party and beyond, is Baker’s
definition of fun?
What’s happening on Beacon Hill may be the clearest signal
that Baker is running — or at least that Democrats think he
is. After years of giving Baker much of what he wanted,
there’s a lot of posturing and chest-bumping going on, as
Democrats who control the Legislature get ready for the next
election cycle.
For example, Baker is trying to win support for plans to
spend some of the state’s $5.3 billion pandemic relief money
on housing, economic development, and infrastructure, but
Democratic lawmakers are fighting for control of the
spending plan. If Baker’s running, he couldn’t ask for a
better battle. According to the State House News Service,
Senate President Karen Spilka and House Speaker Ron Mariano
are promising an “open, transparent and thorough public
process.” That’s a very hollow promise from an institution
known for anything but an open, transparent, and thorough
public process. Advantage Baker.
If Baker doesn’t run, he’s a lame duck and the race for
governor is wide open. If he does, he’s governor again —
unless something that hasn’t stuck, finally sticks. The
Massachusetts political world awaits his decision.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, July 6, 2021
Gas, tax, and TCI — three words Geoff Diehl can build a
campaign on
By Howie Carr
Here are the three words ex-Rep. Geoff Diehl should use in
every speech he makes in his underdog primary campaign
against Gov. Charlie Baker:
Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI).
The TCI is Baker’s latest mad scheme to wreck the
Commonwealth’s economy. He lusts to impose an outrageous new
tax on fuel, on top of the current 24-cent state tax on a
gallon.
According to at least one study, TCI could eventually tack
another 38 cents onto the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Does
that seem like a good idea, given what the Democrats have
already done to gas prices since Jan. 20?
All Diehl has to tell Republican primary voters is this:
“If you support Charlie’s plan to jack up the state’s
gasoline tax by another 38 cents per gallon – with zero
input from either voters or the legislature – then he’s your
man.”
Or: “If you liked 15 months of Charlie’s pointless
lockdowns, you’ll love his 150 percent increase in the state
gasoline tax.”
What could possibly go wrong?
This TCI heist was originally supposed to involve all the
Northeastern states jumping off the cliff together to screw
their motorists, but every other jurisdiction has since come
to its senses and pulled the plug.
Except for Massachusetts.
This could be Diehl’s silver-bullet issue against the failed
RINO governor whom Joe Biden calls “Charlie Parker.”
Parker’s catastrophic overreaction to the virus should be
disqualifying enough. Historically, few politicians have
been rewarded for leading their constituencies through
disasters.
Look what happened to Winston Churchill in 1945 after the
Allied victory in World War II. And that was a real crisis,
not the phony-baloney COVID panic that Baker mismanaged:
with the third worst death rate in the nation and at times
simultaneously the nation’s highest unemployment rate.
But now he’s back with a new doomsday plot, TCI. Just as
Baker only made a manageable problem worse with his
police-state bullying, he now asserts that he can beggar the
state’s motorists just … because.
If Baker can “break the will” of his voters to drive, as one
of his $130,000-a-year payroll patriots bragged, then the
planet will be saved from global warming, or something.
But how exactly would that work? I mean, the United States
accounts for 5% of the world’s population, and Massachusetts
is 3% of that 5%.
But Charlie seems to seriously believe that if he can just
bankrupt the motorists of his home state, that will stop the
rising sea levels (which Barack Obama told us he would end
in 2008). The polar bears and piping plovers will thank
Charlie forever.
Does this make even the slightest bit of sense?
Has Charlie forgotten how he first got elected in 2014 — as
an anti-gas tax stalwart?
In 2013, the legislature had passed an automatic annual gas
tax increase to raise billions more for waste, fraud and
abuse. The taxpayers fought back with a referendum question
on the statewide ballot to halt the automatic increases.
Running for governor, Charlie married the anti-gas-tax
Question 1. As you can see, he had photo ops at gas pumps.
He did press conferences with the referendum organizers,
including Diehl, who was running the campaign.
On Election Day 2014, Question 1 won easily with 53 percent,
repealing the outrageous new gas tax by 123,000 votes.
On the other hand, Charlie limped to victory by only 40,000
votes, even though he was running against one of the weakest
candidates in state history, Marsha Coakley.
In other words, Charlie rode into office on the coattails of
the state’s motorists, and now he proposes to repay them
with … the largest gas tax increase in history.
If they ever name a street after Parker, it’ll have to be
one-way.
He raised $90,000 for his campaign last month. But you still
have to wonder, as catastrophic as his second term has been,
how can Baker realistically seek another four years?
To ask just one question, where would he officially announce
his candidacy?
At the Holyoke Soldiers Home? On an MBTA train? At Mass
State Police headquarters in Framingham, or at the Registry
of Motor Vehicles in Quincy?
Even four years ago, Charlie was not terribly popular among
the GOP electorate. His underwhelming primary opponent,
Scott Lively, got 38 percent of the vote against him with
practically no organization or money.
And this was before Parker began back-stabbing Donald Trump
full-time, not to mention destroying the state’s economy.
And now Parker may be seeking a third term … to finish the
job.
If you liked being locked down for no good reason for 15
months, you’ll love TCI. Re-elect the Masked Man.
WGBH TV2
Wednesday, July 7, 2021
Geoff Diehl Makes His Case For Governor, Shows Some Distance
From Trump
By Greater Boston Staff | Hannah Reale
Gov. Charlie Baker still has not announced if he plans to
run for a third term next year, but if he does jump into the
race, he's already got a primary challenger to contend with:
Geoff Diehl.
Diehl served as a state representative for eight years,
helped lead a successful effort on the ballot to repeal the
indexing of the gas tax to inflation, described himself as a
co-chair of Donald Trump’s Massachusetts campaign in 2016
and ran against Senator Elizabeth Warren for her seat in
2018. He launched his gubernatorial bid on Sunday.
Diehl joined Jim Braude on Greater Boston Wednesday to
talk about why he’s seeking the seat, issues he’s seen in
the Baker administration and state- and nation-wide GOP
political questions.
“I ran in 2010 for state rep because I thought I could make
a difference for the town I live in, for the towns I
represented,” Diehl said. “I got to see a lot more when I
got to Beacon Hill about what's going on in the state. And I
got to see a lot more in 2018 when I ran for U.S. Senate. I
think I've got still something to give for Massachusetts and
I'd like to obviously run in the Republican primary and then
— if I have an opponent — and then take my case to the
people for 2022.”
Diehl levied criticisms against the Baker administration
over the hardships that small businesses faced during the
pandemic, saying that the state government could have laid
off or furloughed non-essential employees to show
reciprocity with those working in the private sector. He
also called out the state government on the slow initial
rollout of COVID-19 vaccinations and the deaths at the
Holyoke Soldiers’ Home.
Braude noted that Massachusetts now has one of the highest
vaccination rates in the country, and asked “Does [Baker]
deserve credit for that?”
“We also had the third highest per capita death rate,” Diehl
responded. “I mean, does he deserve blame for that?”
He also took questions on several thorny political issues in
state and national GOP politics. In May, Massachusetts
Republican State Committee member Deborah Martell wrote in
an email that she was “sickened” that a Republican
Congressional candidate who is married to a man had adopted
kids. Gov. Baker and others called for her to resign from
the panel.
“First of all, I totally side with the candidate, Jeffrey
Sossa-Paquette — very nice guy, lovely family, absolutely
support his run for Congress,” Diehl said. “Secondly, I
think the state committeewoman who made the comments was
wrong in what she said. The biggest problem we have is that
our bylaws don't permit for removal of a member for free
speech. And I understand that that speech may not be
anything that anybody agrees with, all I'm saying is there
is nothing in our bylaws that allows for removal.”
Diehl said that, had he been elected to the U.S. Senate in
2018, he would have voted for the bi-partisan commission to
investigate the January 6 insurrection — which would have
meant breaking with all of his Republican colleagues in the
Senate.
The 2020 election, he said, was not stolen from former
President Donald Trump.
“I don't think it was a stolen election,” Diehl said. “I
just think that, again, at this point, we need to move
forward, stop crying over spilled milk as a Republican Party
and look towards the future.”
Braude also asked about who Diehl sees as his potential
base, given Baker's popularity and that registered
Republicans make up just 10% of the Massachusetts’
electorate.
“People know who I am, they know what I stand for, I think
they appreciate it,” Diehl said. “And this state will elect
someone who is a Republican governor. I may be center-right,
Charlie Baker may govern center-left, but I think, given the
choice of who the Democratic nominee may be, center-right
may be what they're looking for.”
State House News Service
Monday, July 7, 2021
Ballot Campaign Taking Shape For Voter ID Proposal
By Michael P. Norton
Massachusetts voters would be required to present
identification to prove their identity at polling places,
under an initiative petition that the head of the state
Republican Party hopes to place on the 2022 statewide
ballot.
MassGOP Chairman Jim Lyons, a former state representative,
announced the campaign in a Sunday, July 4 email in which he
put out the call for at least 2,000 volunteers to help
gather enough signatures to qualify the measure for the
ballot.
"What's clear to me, after serving eight years as a state
lawmaker, is that Beacon Hill will never so much as debate
the merits of voter ID laws, and that's why we're taking
this question straight to the people," Lyons wrote.
In his email, Lyons linked to a
Monmouth University Polling Institute survey in which 80
percent of respondents expressed support for requiring
voters to show a photo identification in order to vote. The
telephone poll was conducted from June 9 to June 14, with
810 adults in the United States.
Beacon Hill Republicans over the years have repeatedly
pushed voter ID bills, which have failed to gain sufficient
support to make it out of the Democrat-controlled Election
Laws Committee. The coming debate over early voting and
mail-in voting could give voter ID supporters a chance to
offer their proposal.
Opponents of voter ID proposals have asserted they could
discourage eligible voters from casting ballots.
Organizers behind initiative petition campaigns must file
their proposed language, along with signatures from 10
registered voters, by the first Wednesday in August (Aug. 4
this year) to get in the running for next year's ballot.
Petitioners must collect an initial round of 80,239 voter
signatures by early December, and a second round of 13,374
signatures next spring in order to keep their petitions on
the 2022 ballot track. |
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
|
