 |
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
Sunday, July 25, 2021
Multiple Attacks on
Prop 2˝
Submerge Beneath The Surface, For Now
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News
Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
The Legislature can pass a whopping $48.1 billion
budget, but that does not mean that members have to read
it.
The fact of the matter is that hardly any of the 160
members of the House and 40 members of the Senate in the
Democrat-controlled Legislature actually read the
hundreds of budget pages or have any idea where the
money comes from or where it goes.
But they vote to approve it anyway, as they did last
week before sending the record-breaking fiscal document
to Gov. Charlie Baker for his signature. The Republican
governor signed a $47.6 billion budget on Friday,
vetoing $7.9 million of the lawmakers’ spending plan.
“Hell, no,” one veteran lawmaker told me when I asked if
he ever read any of the annual budgets he voted on. “I
relied on leadership and staff.”
By leadership, he means House Speaker Ron Mariano and
his leadership team....
The same holds true even more so for the state Senate
under Senate President Karen Spilka where there are far
fewer members and her grip is tighter.
One of the best-kept secrets at the State House is that
while the Legislature can pass a whopping $48.1 billion
budget for the upcoming fiscal year, it does not mean
that lawmakers have to read it....
It would take a certified public accountant to make
sense of the budget, let alone a newcomer to the
Legislature who has difficulty balancing his personal
checking account.
Here is a random paragraph from the 422-page, $48.1
billion budget dealing with an appropriation for an
agency. The appropriation is made “not withstanding
section 2 of Chapter 70 of the General Laws, as amended
by Chapter 12B of Chapter 76 and section 89 of Chapter
71 of the General Laws.” Hey, what?
Here’s another, “Section 4 of the General Laws as hereby
amended by striking out section 68, as most recently
amended by section 5 of Chapter 227, of the Acts of 2020
inserting in place the following section …”
These are just two small examples of what is in the
document.
The Boston Herald
Monday, July 19, 2021
Lawmakers prove they don’t read the
state budget to pass it
By Peter Lucas
The Revenue Committee held a virtual hearing on
legislation that would allow cities and towns to impose
a fee of up to 2 percent on homebuyers who purchase
property for more than $1 million dollars. The funds
would be used “for the creation and preservation of
affordable housing in municipalities for the benefit of
low- and-moderate income households or for the funding
of community housing.” ...
“Massachusetts is in the midst of a profoundly
unaffordable housing crisis where ultra-wealthy
homebuyers are displacing lifelong residents and not
enough units exist to house working families,” said the
bill’s sponsor Rep. Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth). “This
bill gives communities the option, if they choose to
enact it, to impose a small fee on ultra-rich people
buying luxury homes and properties to fund affordable
housing across the state and create a lasting solution
to our housing crisis.”
“[This bill is] another tax scheme that would extract an
additional 2 percent tax on homes sold for over $1
million, a price that through market appreciation alone
is closing in on many properties and home buyers in the
high cost-of-living Bay State,” said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“When is enough enough? I very much doubt it ever will
be so long as voters keep re-electing the same
politicians.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
July 19-23, 2021
By Bob Katzen
Local Option 2 Percent Tax On Purchase Of Homes For More
Than $1 Million (H 2895) |
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
In the CLT Update of April 18
("A Massachusetts Irony-of-Ironies")
I wrote:
I'm
still struggling to plow through those 6,000-plus bills
to discover where this year's stealth attack on
Proposition 2˝ is buried. Please appreciate that
these bills, along with being obtuse in the extreme,
referring back to other chapters and sections of Mass.
General Laws, each runs for multitudes of pages. I
haven't unearthed this year's sneak attack yet — but
have little doubt it's going to be there, somewhere.
You
may recall in 2018 one was buried in a transportation
bill, another was concealed deep within the massive
economic development bill; it was buried in the huge
education reform funding bill in 2019, and; last year it
was quietly secreted deep within the $17 Billion
transportation bond bill.
But folks, I did it so you
didn't need to, even if you had cause to suspect it was
coming. This is why CLT is so important to every
taxpayer in the Commonwealth —
or ought to be. Was it not for CLT nobody
(but the perpetrators)
would know the assaults were even happening to them
— until they got hit with their
next property tax bill. Look at how many times over
recent years that
CLT
has defended you and all taxpayers from that sticker-shock.
Plodding through any bill
presented in all the legislative legalese mumbo-jumbo (most
require hours of translating and cross-referencing) is
— as anyone who has ever done
it will attest — excruciating.
It took literally some 50 hours between discovery of the
stealth attacks on Monday morning and achieving sufficient
comprehension of the four bills to write CLT's opposition
testimony by late Wednesday.
Veteran Beacon Hill senior
observer for many decades, longtime political reporter and Boston Herald columnist Peter Lucas
has shared this ordeal and described it well. It
reminded me of my above comment from the April 18 CLT Update
on the challenges. In his
Herald column on Monday ("Lawmakers
prove they don’t read the state budget to pass it") he
noted:
The Legislature can pass a whopping
$48.1 billion budget, but that does not mean that
members have to read it.
The fact of the matter is that
hardly any of the 160 members of the House and 40
members of the Senate in the Democrat-controlled
Legislature actually read the hundreds of budget pages
or have any idea where the money comes from or where it
goes.
But they vote to approve it anyway,
as they did last week before sending the record-breaking
fiscal document to Gov. Charlie Baker for his signature.
The Republican governor signed a $47.6 billion budget on
Friday, vetoing $7.9 million of the lawmakers’ spending
plan.
“Hell, no,” one veteran lawmaker
told me when I asked if he ever read any of the annual
budgets he voted on. “I relied on leadership and staff.”
By leadership, he means House
Speaker Ron Mariano and his leadership team....
The same holds true even more so
for the state Senate under Senate President Karen Spilka
where there are far fewer members and her grip is
tighter.
One of the best-kept secrets at the
State House is that while the Legislature can pass a
whopping $48.1 billion budget for the upcoming fiscal
year, it does not mean that lawmakers have to read
it....
It would take a certified public
accountant to make sense of the budget, let alone a
newcomer to the Legislature who has difficulty balancing
his personal checking account.
Here is a random paragraph from
the 422-page, $48.1 billion budget dealing with an
appropriation for an agency. The appropriation is made
“not withstanding section 2 of Chapter 70 of the General
Laws, as amended by Chapter 12B of Chapter 76 and
section 89 of Chapter 71 of the General Laws.” Hey,
what?
Here’s another, “Section 4 of
the General Laws as hereby amended by striking out
section 68, as most recently amended by section 5 of
Chapter 227, of the Acts of 2020 inserting in place the
following section …”
These are just two small
examples of what is in the document. [Emphasis
added]
Each of the "Regional
Transportation Ballot Initiatives," "Regional Ballot
Initiatives," and "Affordable Housing Surcharge" bills
CLT testified
against before The Joint Committee on Revenue hearing on
Thursday all begin with:
"Notwithstanding Chapter 59 or
any other general or special law to the contrary . . ."
That's a sure giveaway, if you
know what you're looking for.
Chapter 59, Section 21C is the heart and soul of
Proposition 2˝, its lifeblood though
spatters hither and yon within Massachusetts
General Laws.
When
you come across a bill that opens with "Notwithstanding Chapter 59"
that means —
"Despite Proposition 2˝"!
Along
with that illuminating phrase all
three of the "regional transportation ballot initiatives"
contain a similar variety of these statements:
"Upon
passage of this Act, a city or town shall have authority
to impose any tax surcharge within its city or town on a
single subject of taxation including a payroll, sales,
property, fuel, or vehicle excise tax....
"Revenues raised through the tax surcharge shall be used
for transportation-related purposes only including for
the expenditure by the city or town for maintaining,
repairing, planning, design, financing, operating,
improving and constructing of public transportation and
transit systems, roads, bridges, bikeways, pedestrian
pathways, and other transportation-related enhancement
projects."
This
means your city/town could begin taxing your income, impose
its own sales tax or gas tax, or simply increase your
property tax or auto excise tax limited by our Prop 2˝ since
1980 — and spend the proceeds on
pretty much anything transportation-related including
filling potholes, basic road maintenance, snow-plowing,
equipment, salaries and benefits, etc.
Tax revenue being fungible, municipal revenue that is now
directed to city or town highway department costs ordinarily
funded by today's limited municipal property and excise
taxes would be freed up to expand spending in other
areas.
Now we wait to learn what The Joint
Committee on Revenue decides in secret to do with those
bills. If one or more are released with a favorable
report the question becomes where it or they will be secreted this time
to try sneaking them through into passage hopefully
without notice — likely
buried within another massive "must-pass" unrelated bill
voted on by clueless, half-asleep legislators at the
eleventh hour. As the Legislature will take its
"August Recess" at the end of the week and won't return
until after Labor Day we've got a breather.
You might
recall state Senator Eric Lesser (D-Longmeadow), the lead
advocate of last year's similar stealth attack on
Proposition 2˝,
Section 5 buried deeply within the massive $17 billion
transportation bond bill. CLT's insistent opposition
contributed if not managed to have it removed from the final
transportation bond bill before passage. Ever since his
defeat I've expected Lesser would be back to take another
shot and sure enough here he is again. He is the lead
sponsor of S-1899, though has inspired a number of his
fellow legislators to follow with their own versions this
year.
State Senator Eric Lesser
(D-Longmeadow)
State House News Service photo
During that 2020 battle I noted
how his constituents at a Longmeadow town meeting on that
June 26 had just voted down a push by selectmen and the
town's finance committee to send a home rule petition to the
Legislature to exempt the town from Proposition 2˝
limitations, yet their state senator, Eric Lesser, charged
ahead regardless pushing with everything he had to impose
what they'd already rejected. ("Question
of the Week: Just who does State Senator Eric Lesser
(D-Longmeadow) represent?") As is more the rule
than the exception in Massachusetts, nonetheless he was
re-elected that November and retains his seat.
Sen.
Lesser has been chasing this dream of his for years.
In 2018 while all Beacon Hill eyes were on slipping through
the so-called "Community
Benefit Districts" bill (a neighborhood property tax
which CLT ultimately defeated) Lesser was also pushing for —
you guessed it — his "regional transportation initiative"
law (which CLT also ultimately defeated).
The State
House News Service reported on July 11, 2018 ("After
surtax fail, senator sees regional transpo taxes as 'Great
Plan B'"):
When
one door to transportation revenue closes, there's an
opportunity to try to open others, according to a
Longmeadow Democrat who is making an eleventh hour push
for local ballot initiatives to fund buses, highways and
bike paths, an option available in most other states....
"There was a lot of hesitancy to engage in revenue items
while the Fair Share Amendment discussions pended. Now
we have finality on that. We have the feedback from the
SJC. This really elevates one of the most specific items
we can do right away to get those investments to
transportation," Sen. Eric Lesser told advocates at a
Wednesday briefing on his bill (S 1551/H 1640). He said,
"We were waiting on making big revenue decisions until
that was completed. Now it's completed. We saw the
answer. It wasn't what I personally would have liked to
have seen but this is a great plan B."
Lesser's bill would enable local communities to band
together and ask their voters to support new regional
taxes to pay for local transportation projects.
The
legislation is before the Senate Committee on Ways and
Means, which does not have a vote scheduled on it with
only three weeks remaining before the end of formal
sessions. Legislation has also not moved in the House.
By a
33-7 vote, the Senate tacked on a regional ballot
initiative measure to a municipal modernization bill in
2016 but the House did not, and the provision did not
make it into the version of the bill that became law.
There was
a fifth bill heard by the Revenue Committee on Thursday,
onerous but which did not directly attack Proposition 2˝.
Beacon Hill Roll Call reported on it in its weekly report
for July 19-23, 2021 ("Local Option 2 Percent Tax On
Purchase Of Homes For More Than $1 Million [H 2895]"):
The Revenue Committee held a
virtual hearing on legislation that would allow cities
and towns to impose a fee of up to 2 percent on
homebuyers who purchase property for more than $1
million dollars. The funds would be used “for the
creation and preservation of affordable housing in
municipalities for the benefit of low- and-moderate
income households or for the funding of community
housing.” ...
“Massachusetts is in the midst of a
profoundly unaffordable housing crisis where
ultra-wealthy homebuyers are displacing lifelong
residents and not enough units exist to house working
families,” said the bill’s sponsor Rep. Dylan Fernandes
(D-Falmouth). “This bill gives communities the option,
if they choose to enact it, to impose a small fee on
ultra-rich people buying luxury homes and properties to
fund affordable housing across the state and create a
lasting solution to our housing crisis.”
“[This bill is] another tax scheme
that would extract an additional 2 percent tax on homes
sold for over $1 million, a price that through market
appreciation alone is closing in on many properties and
home buyers in the high cost-of-living Bay State,” said
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation. “When is enough enough? I very
much doubt it ever will be so long as voters keep
re-electing the same politicians.”
The state Legislature is reluctant to take any heat for
directly raising taxes statewide for its insatiable grand
visions, especially in light of its embarrassment of riches,
the indisputable $10 Billion revenue bonanza. I ts new tactic
is to outsource risky tax-hiking to the municipalities,
which will happily comply then blame it on those voters who
approve the tax hikes. If this succeeds, the
Legislature can then begin reducing what it passes down to
cities and towns through local aid from the state's bounty
— one of Proposition 2˝'s attendant
benefits —
leaving more for Beacon Hill pols to spend on their own
self-indulgence and crazy spending boondoggles.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
The Boston
Herald
Monday, July 19, 2021
Lawmakers prove they don’t read the state budget to pass
it
By Peter Lucas
The Legislature can pass a whopping $48.1 billion
budget, but that does not mean that members have to read
it.
The fact of the matter is that hardly any of the 160
members of the House and 40 members of the Senate in the
Democrat-controlled Legislature actually read the
hundreds of budget pages or have any idea where the
money comes from or where it goes.
But they vote to approve it anyway, as they did last
week before sending the record-breaking fiscal document
to Gov. Charlie Baker for his signature. The Republican
governor signed a $47.6 billion budget on Friday,
vetoing $7.9 million of the lawmakers’ spending plan.
“Hell, no,” one veteran lawmaker told me when I asked if
he ever read any of the annual budgets he voted on. “I
relied on leadership and staff.”
By leadership, he means House Speaker Ron Mariano and
his leadership team.
And the staff he referred to are the scores of career
budget experts who work for the House Ways & Means
Committee, as well as staff of other committees dealing
with financial matters at the State House.
The same holds true even more so for the state Senate
under Senate President Karen Spilka where there are far
fewer members and her grip is tighter.
One of the best-kept secrets at the State House is that
while the Legislature can pass a whopping $48.1 billion
budget for the upcoming fiscal year, it does not mean
that lawmakers have to read it.
That holds true for State House reporters and editorial
writers as well. Although fewer in number these days,
most reporters who “cover” the Legislature do not read
the budget either.
It is also true that the budget, among the thousands of
other bills filed each legislative session, is the most
important document that comes before them.
It is also the most complicated, difficult and boring
document you will ever come across.
It would take a certified public accountant to make
sense of the budget, let alone a newcomer to the
Legislature who has difficulty balancing his personal
checking account.
Here is a random paragraph from the 422-page, $48.1
billion budget dealing with an appropriation for an
agency. The appropriation is made “not withstanding
section 2 of Chapter 70 of the General Laws, as amended
by Chapter 12B of Chapter 76 and section 89 of Chapter
71 of the General Laws.” Hey, what?
Here’s another, “Section 4 of the General Laws as hereby
amended by striking out section 68, as most recently
amended by section 5 of Chapter 227, of the Acts of 2020
inserting in place the following section …”
These are just two small examples of what is in the
document.
So what’s a legislator supposed to do? Well, the
conscientious one goes to the institutional memory bank
of the Legislature, which is controlled by the House
speaker, for a briefing. That is the time-honored
process. Satisfied, the legislator votes with the
speaker.
The more politically ambitious legislator, seeking
publicity and a stepping stone for higher office,
attacks the process and calls for an eight-year term
limit for the speaker as a means to curtail his power.
This is what progressive Rep. Tami Gouveia, D-Acton, a
candidate for lieutenant governor, proposed last week.
While she got her headline, she got only six Democrats
to vote with her along with the handful of Republicans
as the motion was shot down, 35-125.
Automatically throwing a speaker under the bus after
eight years means throwing out his institutional memory
and the memory of his team, accumulated over the years
they served before even assuming the speaker’s office.
It is like tearing down a statue of a person you know
nothing about.
Besides, there are existing means to limit the term of a
speaker or to throw him out. Democrats can set term
limits in a caucus.
Also, members can unseat a speaker simply by filing a
motion anytime to “vacate the chair.” It is a motion
that takes precedence and must be taken up immediately.
Also, a speaker can be dumped as the late Speaker Thomas
W. McGee was in 1985, when fellow Democrat Rep. George
Keverian, McGee’s former majority leader, led a coup
against McGee, who was seeking his 10th year on the job.
But while McGee was defeated, Keverian continued on and
the institutional memory of the Legislature remained
intact.
Term limits are a phony issue.
— Peter Lucas is a
veteran Massachusetts political reporter and columnist.
Beacon Hill Roll
Call
Volume 46 -Report No. 30
July 19-23, 2021
By Bob Katzen
Local Option 2 Percent Tax On Purchase Of Homes For More
Than $1 Million (H 2895)
The Revenue Committee held a virtual hearing on
legislation that would allow cities and towns to impose
a fee of up to 2 percent on homebuyers who purchase
property for more than $1 million dollars. The funds
would be used “for the creation and preservation of
affordable housing in municipalities for the benefit of
low- and-moderate income households or for the funding
of community housing.”
The tax would require approval by the city council in
cities and by town meeting in towns. The tax would be
only on the amount above $1 million. Municipalities
would also have the option to raise the $1 million
dollar threshold to any higher amount and/or reduce the
tax to any percentage.
“Massachusetts is in the midst of a profoundly
unaffordable housing crisis where ultra-wealthy
homebuyers are displacing lifelong residents and not
enough units exist to house working families,” said the
bill’s sponsor Rep. Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth). “This
bill gives communities the option, if they choose to
enact it, to impose a small fee on ultra-rich people
buying luxury homes and properties to fund affordable
housing across the state and create a lasting solution
to our housing crisis.”
“[This bill is] another tax scheme that would extract an
additional 2 percent tax on homes sold for over $1
million, a price that through market appreciation alone
is closing in on many properties and home buyers in the
high cost-of-living Bay State,” said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“When is enough enough? I very much doubt it ever will
be so long as voters keep re-electing the same
politicians.”
|
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
|
