 |
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, August 29, 2021
Petition Drive to End
TCI Approaches
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News
Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
Attorney General Maura
Healey on Wednesday is scheduled to issue
determinations on which initiative petitions meet
state constitutional requirements and are thus
eligible to potentially make it to the 2022 ballot.
The certified proposals
will then be filed with Secretary of State William
Galvin's office and the activists, campaigns and
special interests behind each measure will be free
to begin rounding up a first batch of 80,239 voter
signatures, which must be filed with local election
officials in November and then with Galvin's office
by the first Wednesday in December, which is Dec. 1
this year.
Proposals that make it
through that phase will then be put before the
Legislature and if lawmakers don't act then
campaigns can go back out and collect 13,374 more
voter signatures by next June to lock in a spot on
next year's ballot.
Those looking to enact
laws without going through the Legislature must meet
certain requirements. Initiatives must "be in proper
form for submission to voters, not be substantially
the same as any measure on the ballot in either of
the two preceding statewide elections" and may
contain "only subjects that are related to each
other or mutually dependent."
In addition, the state
constitution excludes certain subjects from the
ballot initiative process, such as petitions
relating to "religion, religious practices, or
religious institutions; the powers, creation, or
abolition of the courts; the appointment,
compensation, or tenure of judges; a specific
appropriation of funds from the state treasury; or
if it infringes on other protected constitutional
rights, such as trial by jury, freedom of the press
and freedom of speech."
Earlier this month, 21
groups filed 28 proposed initiative petitions and
two constitutional amendments with Healey's office.
Historically, only a
few petitions make it all the way to the ballot.
State
House News Service
Friday, August 27, 2021
Advances - Week of Aug. 29, 2021
Massachusetts Governor
Charlie Baker has been too hesitant to try to force
people to get the coronavirus vaccine and wear
masks, a former mayor of Worcester said.
“We’ve waited
patiently, hoping to convince the unvaccinated to
step up. We tried gifts, scholarships, and cash. We
said ‘please’ and then ‘pretty please.’ We appealed
to their patriotism. And still millions of Americans
refuse to get vaccinated or wear masks,” wrote
Raymond Mariano, in a column for the Worcester
Telegram & Gazette published Friday, August 27.
He likened the
coronavirus situation to seat belts, which were
optional to use in a car in Massachusetts before
1986, when the state Legislature made it
mandatory....
“When asking nicely
doesn’t work — and it almost never does — we add a
consequence for failure to comply,” Mariano wrote.
The
NewBostonPost
Saturday, August 28, 2021
Charlie Baker Needs To Take
More Civil Liberties Away
To Fight Coronavirus, Former Mayor of Worcester Says
Attorney General Maura
Healey on Wednesday is scheduled to issue
determinations on which initiative petitions meet
state constitutional requirements and are thus
eligible to potentially make it to the 2022 ballot.
The certified proposals
will then be filed with Secretary of State William
Galvin's office and the activists, campaigns and
special interests behind each measure will be free
to begin rounding up a first batch of 80,239 voter
signatures, which must be filed with local election
officials in November and then with Galvin's office
by the first Wednesday in December, which is Dec. 1
this year.
Proposals that make it
through that phase will then be put before the
Legislature and if lawmakers don't act then
campaigns can go back out and collect 13,374 more
voter signatures by next June to lock in a spot on
next year's ballot.
Those looking to enact
laws without going through the Legislature must meet
certain requirements. Initiatives must "be in proper
form for submission to voters, not be substantially
the same as any measure on the ballot in either of
the two preceding statewide elections" and may
contain "only subjects that are related to each
other or mutually dependent."
In addition, the state
constitution excludes certain subjects from the
ballot initiative process, such as petitions
relating to "religion, religious practices, or
religious institutions; the powers, creation, or
abolition of the courts; the appointment,
compensation, or tenure of judges; a specific
appropriation of funds from the state treasury; or
if it infringes on other protected constitutional
rights, such as trial by jury, freedom of the press
and freedom of speech."
Earlier this month, 21
groups filed 28 proposed initiative petitions and
two constitutional amendments with Healey's office.
Historically, only a
few petitions make it all the way to the ballot.
State
House News Service
Friday, August 27, 2021
Advances - Week of Aug. 29, 2021
The temperatures may
have suggested the dead of summer, but preparations
were in full swing this week to welcome students and
employees back to classrooms and offices in the fall
with COVID-19 still swirling in the hot, humid air.
Gov. Charlie Baker set
the bar last week with a no-alternative vaccine
mandate for thousands of executive branch employees,
but as his administration opened negotiations with
unions on the details of that policy, other public
officials and agencies used the administration's
approach as a blueprint.
Senate President Karen
Spilka announced that all Senate lawmakers and staff
would have to be vaccinated by Oct. 15, though the
Ashland Democrat said the date for a full return to
the State House -- a building still closed to the
public -- remains undecided.
The Massachusetts
Gaming Commission also followed the governor's lead
and voted to require the vaccination of all its
employees by Oct. 27 as it prepares to fully reopen
its downtown Boston office on Nov. 1. The commission
is giving its workers two weeks to either prove they
have been vaccinated, schedule an appointment or
make their case for a religious or medical
exemption.
"I absolutely think
given the state of affairs this is the way to go,"
Gaming Commissioner Eileen O'Brien said, alluding to
infection rates that are on the rise.
Mandating vaccinations
became an easier decision to make after the Food and
Drug Administration gave full approval to Pfizer's
shot, no longer authorized just on an emergency
basis. Still, work-from-home and hybrid models will
be very much the norm as workers return from
vacations and settle into a post-Labor Day
rhythm....
All students, teachers
and staff over the age of 5 will be required to wear
masks indoors, regardless of vaccination status, to
start the school year as the Delta variant has
fueled a resurgence of infections and students under
12 remain ineligible for a vaccine.
The board voted 9-1 to
support the administration's school masking plan,
which would allow middle and high schools to revisit
the issue after Oct. 1 if schools can achieve a
vaccination rate of at least 80 percent....
Republican Geoff Diehl,
who is running for governor, said he believes the
more reasonable thing to do would be to let parents
make their own decisions about the health and safety
of their children. Diehl, a former Whitman lawmaker,
labeled Baker's latest steps to control the spread
of COVID-19 "government intrusion over parental and
personal choices in our lives."
Public opinion,
however, is not exactly on Diehl's side....
The most recent MassINC
poll found broad support for masking in schools,
even among Republicans. Democrats running for
governor would like to see the boundaries pushed
even further.
State
House News Service
Friday, August 27, 2021
Weekly Roundup - What’s Good for
the Goose
After a
Thursday [U.S.] Supreme Court ruling struck the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
eviction moratorium, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley
called for state and federal action to support
renters.
The high
court's 6-3 ruling said Congress "must specifically
authorize" a federal eviction moratorium if it is to
continue.
"It is
indisputable that the public has a strong interest
in combating the spread of the COVID–19 Delta
variant. But our system does not permit agencies to
act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends,"
the ruling said....
Pressley
said policymakers at all levels of government need
to take quick action to prevent an "impending
eviction crisis." She said the court's decision
comes with "just over half of people in the United
States fully vaccinated, breakthrough infections
surging, and only 11 percent of federal emergency
rental assistance funds distributed by states and
localities."
"In
Massachusetts, the Baker administration must
expedite the disbursement of these federal emergency
rental assistance funds, and I urge my colleagues in
the state legislature to swiftly pass the COVID-19
Housing Equity legislation to strengthen eviction
protections and help keep families safely housed,"
the Dorchester Democrat said in a statement.
"Congress should immediately pass legislation to
extend the federal eviction moratorium for the
duration of the pandemic, which would allow more
time for renters and small landlords to receive
emergency rental assistance."
The bill
(S 891) Pressley singled out, filed by Sen. Patricia
Jehlen, would revive a temporary state-level ban on
evictions and foreclosures. Reps. Frank Moran and
Kevin Honan filed a House version (H 1434), and 82
lawmakers had signed onto the bills ahead of a
Housing Committee hearing earlier this month.
State
House News Service
Friday, August 27, 2021
Pressley Looks to Beacon Hill
After Supreme Court Ruling on Evictions
The
Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration’s
stopgap eviction moratorium late Thursday night,
leaving Massachusetts residents vulnerable to
eviction once again before it was set to expire in
October.
“In this
moment where we have continued impacts from
COVID-19… I was really shocked, horrified, and
disappointed that, despite the way this was very
narrowly crafted, the Supreme Court currently has
struck it down,” state Rep. Mike Connolly,
D-Cambridge, said of the moratorium....
Many
landlords were also supportive of the moratorium.
“Landlords and renters are gonna lose with this,
because the CDC moratorium was pretty reasonable
compared to what the state of Massachusetts
Legislature did to us last year and wants to do
again,” said Doug Quattrochi, executive director of
trade association MassLandlords, in reference to
Gov. Charlie Baker’s more stringent statewide
eviction moratorium that expired in October....
Quattrochi
and other landlords have been frustrated by the slow
rollout of millions of rental assistance dollars at
the state’s disposal, but would rather see that
process expedited and the moratorium extended than
the current situation.
The
Boston Herald
Saturday, August 28, 2021
Supreme Court overturns
Biden’s eviction moratorium,
leaving Massachusetts renters at risk
In the
ultimate act of unfortunate timing, the pandemic-era
unemployment benefits for some 7.5 million people
will run out on or just before Labor Day, the
federal holiday that honors the contributions of
American workers.
The
largest such cutoff in history, affecting more than
300,000 in Massachusetts, is taking place as the
coronavirus pandemic that caused unprecedented job
losses escalates once again, casting a shadow over a
still shaky employment landscape.
Employers
grappling with staffing shortages have been watching
the date with great anticipation, hoping the loss of
weekly checks will spur people back into the job
market. Congress, which has extended jobless
benefits several times, is not expected to do so
again.
The
looming cutoff of benefits reveals a Massachusetts
economy that, now more than ever, is a picture of
extremes between the haves and the have nots, one
that breaks along racial lines and keeps low-wage
workers from moving up the ladder....
The vast
majority of the nation’s unemployed people will lose
their supplemental income from three temporary
federal programs that, in Massachusetts, expire
Sept. 4: extended benefits for the long-term
unemployed, special aid for gig-economy workers, and
a $300 weekly supplement.
A great
number of those affected in Massachusetts will be
people of color, who have already suffered
disproportionately during the pandemic; the
unemployment rate in the state over the past 12
months for whites is 6.3 percent, but 9.8 percent
for Black people, and 11.8 percent for Latinos....
There is
no shortage of jobs: more than 237,000 openings in
Massachusetts, according to the state’s executive
office of labor and workforce development. The
agency recently held a weeklong virtual job fair —
the largest in state history — and is planning to
use federal COVID-relief money to retrain 52,000
people.
With an
unemployment rate below the national level, at 4.9
percent, and high vaccination levels, Labor
Secretary Rosalin Acosta said in a recent briefing
that overall, the Massachusetts economy is in a
relatively good place, but she acknowledged getting
people back to work will be a long process....
Meanwhile,
some frustrated employers are holding out hope that
the expiration of benefits will solve their labor
shortages.
Amrheins
restaurant in South Boston recently posted a note on
its door asking customers to be patient as it
struggles with a lack of employees: “Sadly, due to
government handouts, no one wants to work anymore.”
...
Delmy
Martinez, 36, who lost her job cleaning offices in
downtown Boston at the start of the pandemic, just
found out her $460 a week unemployment check is
ending....
Her
husband still works installing hardwood floors, but
her loss of benefits means Martinez may not be able
to pay her cellphone bill or buy rheumatoid
arthritis medicine for her mother in Guatemala....
She made
more on unemployment than she did working, but
worries that being out of work for so long will hurt
her application for political asylum.
The
Boston Globe
Saturday, August 28, 2021
More than 300,000 will
soon lose jobless benefits in Mass.
The looming cutoff reveals an economy divided by
extremes
Over the
last three decades, Massachusetts has made a
reasonably successful effort to shed the
“Taxachusetts” label that once followed the
Commonwealth like a shadow — but there’s at least
one area where more work needs to be done.
That’s the
estate tax.
It’s not
so much that the Commonwealth is one of only 12
states (plus Washington, D.C.) that taxes estates
after death, but rather the way it’s done. The
current estate tax, whose reach includes financial
assets such as stocks, bonds, 401(k)s, IRAs, and
proceeds from life insurance policies, as well as
houses and other real estate, plus vehicles, boats,
and assorted other possessions, kicks in at anything
above $1 million in total value. Nationally, that
ties Massachusetts with Oregon for the lowest
estate-tax-triggering level.
One hardly
needs to have been wealthy for an estate to trip on
that earthly threshold when the person wanders
across a more metaphysical one. Not in the Greater
Boston area, where the median price of a
single-family home hit $811,000 in June. A person
who has a home appraised at $700,000, plus a
combined $275,001 in a 401(k) or IRA, and a vehicle
worth $25,000 would hit that level.
“The low
exemption has made it essentially a middle-class tax
burden if you own real estate in the Commonwealth,”
notes Eileen McAnneny, president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Once an
estate reaches the taxation threshold, Massachusetts
has this unusual (and compared with other estate-tax
states, regressive) feature: The tax isn’t assessed
just on the value above $1 million. Rather, after a
$40,000 exemption, the levy applies to the entire
value of the remaining estate. (Oregon,
contrariwise, only taxes the value of an estate in
excess of $1 million.)
All that
puts Massachusetts out of step not just nationally
but even within New England....
To what
degree state taxation drives relocation decisions is
a hotly debated topic. Conservatives contend it
does; liberals are dubious.
There
isn’t any current study indicating that the
Massachusetts estate tax itself is driving
out-of-state migration among average retirees,
though there is evidence of such an effect with the
super-rich. However, anecdotally, various people say
financial advisers have brought up the possibility
of establishing one’s primary residence elsewhere as
part of an estate-tax-reduction strategy....
State
Representative Shawn Dooley, Republican of Norfolk
and a former financial planner, has proposed
eliminating the reach-down provision so the estate
tax applies only to the estate value that exceeds
the tax-tripping threshold. His plan would also
allow an estate to realize the benefits of two
personal exclusions even if a couple didn’t set up
trusts. Both would be smart changes.
His plan
also calls for setting the value of those personal
exemptions at $2.75 million per person, with an
additional exclusion of $2.75 million in
primary-residence property value, the better to
encourage people to stay domiciled in Massachusetts.
Given the
exclusions in New York ($5.9 million), Vermont ($5
million), and Maine ($5.8 million), and escalating
home values in Massachusetts, a total estate-tax
exemption in the $3 million-$5 million range seems
appropriate. That level should then be indexed to
inflation....
Progressives may object that the state shouldn’t
willingly surrender any revenue, but there’s a
certain competitive wisdom in not being too far out
of step with your regional neighbors. Estate tax
reform is a worthwhile, low-cost investment in
keeping people in Massachusetts — and would strike
one more blow against the tired old moniker
Taxachusetts.
A Boston
Globe editorial
Thursday, August 26, 2021
The Massachusetts estate tax
is in need of an overhaul
Our tax starts too low — and then reaches even lower
Voters in
the House district represented for the past two
decades by Republican Rep. Brad Hill will choose a
new representative on Nov. 30 after the House on
Thursday set a special election date ahead of his
scheduled departure to the Massachusetts Gaming
Commission.
Primaries
will be held on Nov. 2, the deadline to submit
nomination papers to municipalities is Sept. 21, and
the last day to file nomination papers with the
secretary of state is Sept. 28. The 4th Essex
District covers the towns of Ipswich, Hamilton,
Manchester-by-the-Sea, Rowley, Topsfield, and
Wenham....
Jamie
Belsito, founder of nonprofit Maternal Mental Health
Leadership Alliance, announced last week that she is
exploring a bid for the seat. A Topsfield Democrat
who challenged Congressman Seth Moulton in the 2020
primary, Belsito said she "expects to make a
decision after listening to the district's voters
and elected officials."
"I've
never been afraid to take on a big challenge and
fight for what I believe in," Belsito said in a
statement. "If I run for office, I will bring that
same attitude to Beacon Hill. That means taking care
of our district's families, improving our
healthcare, protecting our coastline and riverways
from pollution and climate change, and ensuring
every child has access to a high-quality public
education."
Hill, who
has served in the House since 1999, was selected
last week by Gov. Charlie Baker, Attorney General
Maura Healey, and Treasurer Deborah Goldberg to
serve on the commission. Hill plans to leave the
House on Sept. 15.
State
House News Service
Thursday, August 26, 2021
Republican-Held Mass. House
Seat Up For Grabs In November
Rep. Andy
Vargas is hoping it will be a win-win just for him
in the 2022 primary and general elections as the
Haverhill Democrat first elected to the House in
2017 launched his campaign for state Senate this
week. Vargas is running in the district currently
represented by Sen. Diana DiZoglio, who is running
statewide for auditor. If elected, he would be the
first Dominican-American to be sworn into the
Massachusetts Senate.
Long
before that race is decided, a new state
representative from the 4th Essex District will be
seated in the House.
Rep. Brad
Hill plans to leave next month to become the newest
member of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, and
the House this week set the election dates to
replace him. The primaries will be held on Nov. 2,
followed by a general election on Nov. 30 as the
Republican Party -- down to 30 seats in the House --
attempts to stop the bleeding and hold on to a seat
held by Hill since he was first elected in 1998.
State
House News Service
Friday, August 27, 2021
Weekly Roundup |
|
There wasn't a whole lot
of activity on Beacon Hill that was directly taxpayer-focused, not
that it isn't happening behind closed doors (where Proposition 2½
remains in the Revenue Committee held in secret).
The
focus for taxpayers next week will be on Wednesday when
Attorney General Maura Healey should issue her
determinations on which initiative petitions meet state
constitutional muster to be eligible to potentially make it to the
2022 ballot. Those that do will go to the Secretary of State
for printing of the petition forms. Petition drives for
signatures will be launched soon thereafter.
The one that could most affect taxpayers will be keeping
Massachusetts out of Charlie Baker's "multi-state" pact's
Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI), currently consisting of
Massachusetts and Washington, DC.
I'm working with Paul Craney and Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance to help organize the petition drive (I've managed and
coordinated about a dozen statewide petition signature drives since
the first mandatory seat belt law repeal in 1985-86). We'll
need all the help possible to collect the required 80,239 certified
signatures by November 17. He sent out the following
invitation for a Zoom meeting tomorrow evening for those who are
willing to help:
|
On Monday at 6:30pm, an
independent group of citizens fighting the TCI gas tax
scheme are hosting an organizational Zoom meeting.
They’ve asked us to pass that invitation along and we
felt many of our members would be interested. If
you would like to attend their Zoom meeting, please send
us an email at: noTCItax@massfiscal.org.
We will make sure they know you’re coming, and that a
Zoom link is provided to you.
PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE YOUR NAME, EMAIL, AND ADDRESS
or you will not receive the link.
Anonymous requests will not be passed along.
Many of the signatories to
the effort to put TCI on the 2022 ballot will be
speaking, so if you’re interested in helping them
Monday’s Zoom call would be an excellent opportunity.
You should also email Gov.
Charlie Baker and your lawmakers to urge them to
withdraw MA from TCI. You may do that by clicking
here.
—
Paul Craney |
I'll be
participating in the Zoom conference tomorrow evening at 6:30 P.M.
and hope to see you on there.
Other than that almost all the news this week related to the CCP
Covid-19 pandemic's return disguised as its Delta variant, and how
the state and Gov. Baker are responding to it — or should.
Matt McDonald at NewBostonPost contacted me yesterday to make sure I
saw one politician's grand idea and get my response to it.
Yesterday
The NewBostonPost reported ("Charlie
Baker Needs To Take More Civil Liberties Away To Fight Coronavirus,
Former Mayor of Worcester Says:)
Massachusetts Governor
Charlie Baker has been too hesitant to try to
force people to get the coronavirus vaccine and
wear masks, a former mayor of Worcester said.
“We’ve waited patiently,
hoping to convince the unvaccinated to step up.
We tried gifts, scholarships, and cash. We said
‘please’ and then ‘pretty please.’ We appealed
to their patriotism. And still millions of
Americans refuse to get vaccinated or wear
masks,” wrote Raymond Mariano, in a column for
the Worcester Telegram & Gazette published
Friday, August 27.
He likened the coronavirus
situation to seat belts, which were optional to
use in a car in Massachusetts before 1986, when
the state Legislature made it mandatory....
“When asking nicely doesn’t
work — and it almost never does — we add a
consequence for failure to comply,” Mariano
wrote.
"We add a consequence
for failure to comply." There it is.
Until 1985 I'd never been
more politically involved than casting my vote in elections. I
was a happy-go-lucky independent sign-painter minding my own
business and enjoying life — but the state's imposition of a
mandatory seat belt law snapped something inside me. "If
government can force citizens to strap themselves into their
vehicles 'for their own good' under penalty of law then what comes
next?" I asked myself. For me this was crossing a red
line and needed to be stopped. "If government can get away
with this then more freedoms will gradually be eroded away with
progressively less limitation and resistance!" It was "The
Boiling Frog" analogy coming to life.
I launched The
Committee to Repeal the Mandatory Seat Belt Law with WRKO's
"Dean of Talk Radio" Jerry Williams. We collected the
necessary petition signatures and repealed the law on the 1986
ballot — but my fight against Big Government power had only just
begun.
I was so incensed that I
immediately founded Freedom First to take that battle
national, chartered chapters in twenty-two states, traveled to a
number of them to testify before their state legislatures, ran
around their states on media tours, participated in local rallies
— even became the sole opponent to
testify before a U.S. Senate committee in Washington in 1989 which
was considering a national mandatory seat belt law.
Thirty-six years later for
me that war against Big Government continues.
Over the decades that have
followed we’ve certainly found out what came next, just as I'd
expected it would. Mandatory masking and forced vaccinations
are just the latest iteration in a long and steady devolution of our
liberty.
Back in 1992 when high
tech was beginning to bloom, when the Internet was in its infancy,
doing hours of research at the public library and using my first
computer (a dinosaur IBM PS2-286 that ran on MS-DOS) I wrote “High
Tech and the Age of Intrusion.”
I didn’t need to be
Nostradamus to see the future back then — and more recently didn't
hesitate when I saw it was time to bail out of The People's Republic
while I still could. How? Precognition, situational awareness, or
keen and constant observation of news then connecting the dots
— who knows?
Last week delivered the
beginning of the end of CCP Covid-19 pandemic benefits. Did
anyone expect them to last forever? Apparently some do.
The U.S. Supreme Court once again terminated the extension of rent
non-payment. It did it last month but President Biden ignored
the court and extended it on his own. Late on Thursday evening
the high court struck back, and struck it down again.
The
State House News Service reported on Friday ("Pressley
Looks to Beacon Hill After Supreme Court Ruling on Evictions"):
After a Thursday [U.S.]
Supreme Court ruling struck the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's eviction
moratorium, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley called
for state and federal action to support renters.
The high court's 6-3 ruling
said Congress "must specifically authorize" a
federal eviction moratorium if it is to
continue.
"It is indisputable that
the public has a strong interest in combating
the spread of the COVID–19 Delta variant. But
our system does not permit agencies to act
unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends,"
the ruling said....
Pressley said policymakers
at all levels of government need to take quick
action to prevent an "impending eviction
crisis." She said the court's decision comes
with "just over half of people in the United
States fully vaccinated, breakthrough infections
surging, and only 11 percent of federal
emergency rental assistance funds distributed by
states and localities."
"In Massachusetts, the
Baker administration must expedite the
disbursement of these federal emergency rental
assistance funds, and I urge my colleagues in
the state legislature to swiftly pass the
COVID-19 Housing Equity legislation to
strengthen eviction protections and help keep
families safely housed," the Dorchester Democrat
said in a statement. "Congress should
immediately pass legislation to extend the
federal eviction moratorium for the duration of
the pandemic, which would allow more time for
renters and small landlords to receive emergency
rental assistance."
The bill (S 891) Pressley
singled out, filed by Sen. Patricia Jehlen,
would revive a temporary state-level ban on
evictions and foreclosures. Reps. Frank Moran
and Kevin Honan filed a House version (H 1434),
and 82 lawmakers had signed onto the bills ahead
of a Housing Committee hearing earlier this
month.
This is
the same shameless Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley
— a notorious member of "The
Squad" composed of Socialist/Marxist members
of the U.S. House of Representatives Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida
Tlaib (D-MI), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), and Cori Bush
(D-MO) and Boston's own Pressley — who along with
her husband collected "between $5,000 and $15,000"
(a range allowed in Congressional financial
disclosure forms) in rent from a Boston property
they owned in both 2019 and 2020, according to many
sources such as Town Hall on August 16 ("'Squad'
Member Who Wanted to 'Cancel Rent' Received
Thousands in Rental Income in 2020").
The Boston Herald
yesterday reported: ("Supreme Court
overturns Biden’s eviction moratorium,leaving Massachusetts renters
at risk"):
The Supreme Court struck
down the Biden administration’s stopgap eviction
moratorium late Thursday night, leaving
Massachusetts residents vulnerable to eviction
once again before it was set to expire in
October.
“In this moment where we
have continued impacts from COVID-19… I was
really shocked, horrified, and disappointed
that, despite the way this was very narrowly
crafted, the Supreme Court currently has struck
it down,” state Rep. Mike Connolly, D-Cambridge,
said of the moratorium....
Many landlords were also
supportive of the moratorium. “Landlords and
renters are gonna lose with this, because the
CDC moratorium was pretty reasonable compared to
what the state of Massachusetts Legislature did
to us last year and wants to do again,” said
Doug Quattrochi, executive director of trade
association MassLandlords, in reference to Gov.
Charlie Baker’s more stringent statewide
eviction moratorium that expired in October....
Quattrochi and other
landlords have been frustrated by the slow
rollout of millions of rental assistance dollars
at the state’s disposal, but would rather see
that process expedited and the moratorium
extended than the current situation.
The poor landlords have
not collected rents (unless you're Ayanna Pressley) for a year and a
half and the state bureaucracy is apparently in no rush to dispense
their haul of federal pandemic relief funds dedicated for that
specific purpose. The landlords apparently feel the only way
they can hope to possibly collect on those months of back-rent is to
keep their tenants where they can find them.
It's not just the end of
the rent moratorium but enhanced federal unemployment benefits that
are running out as well.
The Boston Globe reported yesterday ("More
than 300,000 will soon lose jobless benefits in Mass. The looming
cutoff reveals an economy divided by extremes"):
In the ultimate act of
unfortunate timing, the pandemic-era
unemployment benefits for some 7.5 million
people will run out on or just before Labor Day,
the federal holiday that honors the
contributions of American workers.
The largest such cutoff in
history, affecting more than 300,000 in
Massachusetts, is taking place as the
coronavirus pandemic that caused unprecedented
job losses escalates once again, casting a
shadow over a still shaky employment landscape.
Employers grappling with
staffing shortages have been watching the date
with great anticipation, hoping the loss of
weekly checks will spur people back into the job
market. Congress, which has extended jobless
benefits several times, is not expected to do so
again.
There is no shortage of
jobs: more than 237,000 openings in
Massachusetts, according to the state’s
executive office of labor and workforce
development. The agency recently held a weeklong
virtual job fair — the largest in state history
— and is planning to use federal COVID-relief
money to retrain 52,000 people.
Meanwhile, some frustrated
employers are holding out hope that the
expiration of benefits will solve their labor
shortages.
Amrheins restaurant in
South Boston recently posted a note on its door
asking customers to be patient as it struggles
with a lack of employees: “Sadly, due to
government handouts, no one wants to work
anymore.”
Maybe those employers'
problems are about to improve if not be entirely solved.
On Thursday a
Boston Globe editorial came out in favor of a more
fair state estate tax that reduces the burden on taxpayers
especially wealthy taxpayers. I thought something must be
wrong so read it again. Whenever The Globe and I agree with
anything I have to rethink my position, thinking I must be missing
something. In its editorial ("The
Massachusetts estate tax is in need of an overhaul Our tax starts
too low — and then reaches even lower") its editorial board
wrote:
Over the last three
decades, Massachusetts has made a reasonably
successful effort to shed the “Taxachusetts”
label that once followed the Commonwealth like a
shadow — but there’s at least one area where
more work needs to be done.
That’s the estate tax.
It’s not so much that the
Commonwealth is one of only 12 states (plus
Washington, D.C.) that taxes estates after
death, but rather the way it’s done. The current
estate tax, whose reach includes financial
assets such as stocks, bonds, 401(k)s, IRAs, and
proceeds from life insurance policies, as well
as houses and other real estate, plus vehicles,
boats, and assorted other possessions, kicks in
at anything above $1 million in total value.
Nationally, that ties Massachusetts with Oregon
for the lowest estate-tax-triggering level.
One hardly needs to have
been wealthy for an estate to trip on that
earthly threshold when the person wanders across
a more metaphysical one. Not in the Greater
Boston area, where the median price of a
single-family home hit $811,000 in June. A
person who has a home appraised at $700,000,
plus a combined $275,001 in a 401(k) or IRA, and
a vehicle worth $25,000 would hit that level.
“The low exemption has made
it essentially a middle-class tax burden if you
own real estate in the Commonwealth,” notes
Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation.
Once an estate reaches the
taxation threshold, Massachusetts has this
unusual (and compared with other estate-tax
states, regressive) feature: The tax isn’t
assessed just on the value above $1 million.
Rather, after a $40,000 exemption, the levy
applies to the entire value of the remaining
estate. (Oregon, contrariwise, only taxes the
value of an estate in excess of $1 million.)
All that puts Massachusetts
out of step not just nationally but even within
New England....
State Representative Shawn
Dooley, Republican of Norfolk and a former
financial planner, has proposed eliminating the
reach-down provision so the estate tax applies
only to the estate value that exceeds the
tax-tripping threshold. His plan would also
allow an estate to realize the benefits of two
personal exclusions even if a couple didn’t set
up trusts. Both would be smart changes.
His plan also calls for
setting the value of those personal exemptions
at $2.75 million per person, with an additional
exclusion of $2.75 million in primary-residence
property value, the better to encourage people
to stay domiciled in Massachusetts.
Given the exclusions in New
York ($5.9 million), Vermont ($5 million), and
Maine ($5.8 million), and escalating home values
in Massachusetts, a total estate-tax exemption
in the $3 million-$5 million range seems
appropriate. That level should then be indexed
to inflation....
Progressives may object
that the state shouldn’t willingly surrender any
revenue, but there’s a certain competitive
wisdom in not being too far out of step with
your regional neighbors. Estate tax reform is a
worthwhile, low-cost investment in keeping
people in Massachusetts — and would strike one
more blow against the tired old moniker
Taxachusetts.
On reconsideration I
concluded that the estate tax much be affecting the Boston Globe's "trustafarian"
class — as Howie Carr long ago defined
them. Along with Rep. Shawn Dooley CLT has always called for
reform the estate tax to conform closer to those of other states
that have an estate tax.
Two years ago, on
September 10, 2019, CLT testified before the Joint Committee on
Revenue, ("CLT
Supports Estate Tax Revision; Opposes “Bifurcated” Property Tax"):
The cleanest, most straightforward
bills to address the Massachusetts Estate Tax are S.1657 and
S.1731, both titled "An Act abolishing the death tax." As one of
only eleven states in the nation that still imposes an estate
tax, it is incumbent upon Massachusetts to catch up with the
other 39 and repeal its estate tax as well.
Failing that,
the very minimum this committee and the Legislature as a whole
can and should do is to update and modernize what is currently
imposed on the heirs of deceased state citizens. The state
estate tax has an unique “threshold trigger” not found
elsewhere, and it has not been adjusted for inflation, or for
the Bay State's booming home property value appreciation, in
almost two decades while the CPI has increased by 46.5%.
Compare that to
state spending over the same period (FY2001 State Budget: $21.4
billion; FY2020 State Budget: $43.3 billion) — a 202%
increase....
Two years later
legislators are still chewing over it —
with the same results as always I expect. What's theirs is
theirs and what's yours is theirs too.
The
State House News Service reported on Thursday ("Republican-Held
Mass. House Seat Up For Grabs In November"):
Voters in the House
district represented for the past two decades by
Republican Rep. Brad Hill will choose a new
representative on Nov. 30 after the House on
Thursday set a special election date ahead of
his scheduled departure to the Massachusetts
Gaming Commission.
Primaries will be held on
Nov. 2, the deadline to submit nomination papers
to municipalities is Sept. 21, and the last day
to file nomination papers with the secretary of
state is Sept. 28. The 4th Essex District covers
the towns of Ipswich, Hamilton,
Manchester-by-the-Sea, Rowley, Topsfield, and
Wenham....
Jamie Belsito, founder of
nonprofit Maternal Mental Health Leadership
Alliance, announced last week that she is
exploring a bid for the seat. A Topsfield
Democrat who challenged Congressman Seth Moulton
in the 2020 primary, Belsito said she "expects
to make a decision after listening to the
district's voters and elected officials."
"I've never been afraid to
take on a big challenge and fight for what I
believe in," Belsito said in a statement. "If I
run for office, I will bring that same attitude
to Beacon Hill. That means taking care of our
district's families, improving our healthcare,
protecting our coastline and riverways from
pollution and climate change, and ensuring every
child has access to a high-quality public
education."
Hill, who has served in the
House since 1999, was selected last week by Gov.
Charlie Baker, Attorney General Maura Healey,
and Treasurer Deborah Goldberg to serve on the
commission. Hill plans to leave the House on
Sept. 15.
One fewer Republican in
the state House of Representatives will take the GOP total down to
29 out of 160 members, bringing the chamber even more in line with
the Senate's 3 Republicans out of 40. The Democrats have a
candidate who's hit the ground running. Has anyone heard
whether of a Republican candidate is or will be running for the
empty seat in a once-reliably GOP district?
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
State House News
Service
Friday, August 27, 2021
Advances - Week of Aug. 29, 2021
Attorney General Maura Healey on Wednesday is scheduled to
issue determinations on which initiative petitions meet
state constitutional requirements and are thus eligible to
potentially make it to the 2022 ballot.
The certified proposals will then be filed with Secretary of
State William Galvin's office and the activists, campaigns
and special interests behind each measure will be free to
begin rounding up a first batch of 80,239 voter signatures,
which must be filed with local election officials in
November and then with Galvin's office by the first
Wednesday in December, which is Dec. 1 this year.
Proposals that make it through that phase will then be put
before the Legislature and if lawmakers don't act then
campaigns can go back out and collect 13,374 more voter
signatures by next June to lock in a spot on next year's
ballot.
Those looking to enact laws without going through the
Legislature must meet certain requirements. Initiatives must
"be in proper form for submission to voters, not be
substantially the same as any measure on the ballot in
either of the two preceding statewide elections" and may
contain "only subjects that are related to each other or
mutually dependent."
In addition, the state constitution excludes certain
subjects from the ballot initiative process, such as
petitions relating to "religion, religious practices, or
religious institutions; the powers, creation, or abolition
of the courts; the appointment, compensation, or tenure of
judges; a specific appropriation of funds from the state
treasury; or if it infringes on other protected
constitutional rights, such as trial by jury, freedom of the
press and freedom of speech."
Earlier this month, 21 groups filed 28 proposed initiative
petitions and two constitutional amendments with Healey's
office.
Historically, only a few petitions make it all the way to
the ballot. Constitutional issues and signature-gathering
hurdles doom many proposals and campaigns have dropped
others after the Legislature agreed to pass alternative
versions.
The questions that do make it to the ballot wind up helping
to shape elections, forcing candidates to stake positions
that either put them in sync with a majority of voters or at
odds with them. The slate that's been proposed this year
covers issues that include voter identification and other
elections-related measures, the employment status and
benefits of drivers for app-based transportation companies,
hospital finances and a smoking ban in multi-unit homes.
There are also questions that would legalize the sale of
consumer fireworks and happy-hour drink specials. Banned in
Massachusetts since the 1980s, happy-hour alcohol promotions
are also the subject of a handful of bills before the
Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee in
one of the week's three legislative hearings.
Storylines In Progress
... The state's public schools and colleges are coming back
to life, with students and workers masking up again indoors
and pop-up events encouraging COVID-19 vaccination before
the first day of classes.
... The nation's eyes are on Afghanistan where the United
States is working under an Aug. 31 deadline to evacuate
Americans and their allies after the Taliban's takeover of
that country.
... Supporters of pandemic-related housing protections are
likely to dial up their push for state-level action now that
the U.S. Supreme Court has ended the CDC's federal eviction
moratorium, and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley is already
calling for the Baker administration to step up disbursement
of rental assistance and for state lawmakers to pass a Sen.
Pat Jehlen bill.
... The pressure is building on COVID-19 vaccine booster
shots, with new reports suggesting the shots are needed six
months after initial shots, rather than eight, and no
widespread understanding about how the boosters will be
accessed,
... Gov. Charlie Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito turn their
attention to fundraising Thursday in Mashpee.
The
NewBostonPost
Saturday, August 28, 2021
Charlie Baker Needs To Take More Civil Liberties Away
To Fight Coronavirus, Former Mayor of Worcester Says
By Matt McDonald
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has been too hesitant
to try to force people to get the coronavirus vaccine and
wear masks, a former mayor of Worcester said.
“We’ve waited patiently, hoping to convince the unvaccinated
to step up. We tried gifts, scholarships, and cash. We said
‘please’ and then ‘pretty please.’ We appealed to their
patriotism. And still millions of Americans refuse to get
vaccinated or wear masks,” wrote Raymond Mariano, in a
column for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette published
Friday, August 27.
He likened the coronavirus situation to seat belts, which
were optional to use in a car in Massachusetts before 1986,
when the state Legislature made it mandatory.
(Voters in Massachusetts repealed the first seat belt law in
November 1986, 53.7 to 46.3 percent; the state Legislature
enacted another seat belt law in February 1994 (over the
veto of then-governor William Weld); voters rejected a bid
to repeal the second seat belt law in November 1994, 59.5 to
40.5 percent; and now not using a seat belt theoretically
triggers a fine, if a driver is stopped for some other
reason and found by police to not be using a seat belt.)
“When asking nicely doesn’t work — and it almost never does
— we add a consequence for failure to comply,” Mariano
wrote.
He called for the governor to order all schools at all
grades – not just public schools, as now – to force staff
and students to wear masks; to require masks indoors more
generally; and to mandate that every event open to more than
100 people allow only people who have been vaccinated. On
this last point, he mentioned sports games and concerts, but
did not address church services or other types of events
open to the public.
To describe Governor Baker’s performance so far regarding
coronavirus, Mariano used former Boston Red Sox players.
Baker, he said, is like Wade Boggs, a high-average singles
and doubles hitter. But what Massachusetts needs, he said,
is a home run hitter like David Ortiz.
“Where is Big Papi when we need him?” Mariano wrote.
Mariano, 70, served as mayor of Worcester from 1994 to 2002.
State House News
Service
Friday, August 27, 2021
Weekly Roundup - What’s Good for the Goose
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Matt Murphy
The temperatures may have suggested the dead of summer, but
preparations were in full swing this week to welcome
students and employees back to classrooms and offices in the
fall with COVID-19 still swirling in the hot, humid air.
Gov. Charlie Baker set the bar last week with a
no-alternative vaccine mandate for thousands of executive
branch employees, but as his administration opened
negotiations with unions on the details of that policy,
other public officials and agencies used the
administration's approach as a blueprint.
Senate President Karen Spilka announced that all Senate
lawmakers and staff would have to be vaccinated by Oct. 15,
though the Ashland Democrat said the date for a full return
to the State House -- a building still closed to the public
-- remains undecided.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission also followed the
governor's lead and voted to require the vaccination of all
its employees by Oct. 27 as it prepares to fully reopen its
downtown Boston office on Nov. 1. The commission is giving
its workers two weeks to either prove they have been
vaccinated, schedule an appointment or make their case for a
religious or medical exemption.
"I absolutely think given the state of affairs this is the
way to go," Gaming Commissioner Eileen O'Brien said,
alluding to infection rates that are on the rise.
Mandating vaccinations became an easier decision to make
after the Food and Drug Administration gave full approval to
Pfizer's shot, no longer authorized just on an emergency
basis. Still, work-from-home and hybrid models will be very
much the norm as workers return from vacations and settle
into a post-Labor Day rhythm.
While businesses and government agencies consider ways to
structure a more flexible work environment, education
officials are crossing their fingers that the days of remote
learning are behind Massachusetts students and teachers.
With all schools preparing for a full reopening to start the
2021-2022 school year, Education Commissioner Jeff Riley
secured the authority he needed from the Board of Elementary
and Secondary Education to implement a universal masking
mandate.
All students, teachers and staff over the age of 5 will be
required to wear masks indoors, regardless of vaccination
status, to start the school year as the Delta variant has
fueled a resurgence of infections and students under 12
remain ineligible for a vaccine.
The board voted 9-1 to support the administration's school
masking plan, which would allow middle and high schools to
revisit the issue after Oct. 1 if schools can achieve a
vaccination rate of at least 80 percent.
Board member Paymon Rouhanifard cast the lone vote against
masks, calling it "just, frankly, really bad public policy"
to tie the proposal to vaccination rates. He said he thinks
linking it to community spread of the coronavirus would have
been a "more reasonable" alternative.
Republican Geoff Diehl, who is running for governor, said he
believes the more reasonable thing to do would be to let
parents make their own decisions about the health and safety
of their children. Diehl, a former Whitman lawmaker, labeled
Baker's latest steps to control the spread of COVID-19
"government intrusion over parental and personal choices in
our lives."
Public opinion, however, is not exactly on Diehl's side.
The most recent MassINC poll found broad support for masking
in schools, even among Republicans. Democrats running for
governor would like to see the boundaries pushed even
further.
Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz and Danielle Allen both called for
vaccines to be made mandatory for school personnel, and
Chang-Diaz suggested Baker start a public process now to
begin developing a vaccine credentialing system as more
businesses -- for both workers and patrons -- are beginning
to require proof vaccination.
Attorney General Maura Healey, who is still deciding whether
to join Chang-Diaz on the gubernatorial campaign trail, said
she thinks it's too soon to say whether vaccine passports
would be beneficial, or even necessary given the ease with
which some fear vaccine cards could be forged.
"If certain things need to be designed or systems created
then I think we should be open to doing that. I just don't
have a sense right now, to be honest...of how pervasive this
is as a problem," Healey said during a radio appearance.
Baker was noticeably quiet this week, but also went on the
radio to donate and help raise money for the Jimmy Fund,
spending more time during his WEEI interview talking about
Tom Brady and Charlie Watts than any public policy.
Baker did, however, record a two-part interview with Jon
Keller that will begin airing this Sunday before he and
First Lady Lauren Baker headed out of town for the weekend
on a "personal trip" to Tennessee.
Speaking of travel, Congressman Seth Moulton made
international news when he and U.S. Rep. Peter Meijer, a
Michigan Republican, snuck away on a secret reconnaissance
mission to Kabul in defiance of the State Department and
other agencies.
Moulton and Meijer, both veterans, wanted to observe first
hand the conditions on the ground as the United States
continued to evacuate American and Afghan allies from
Afghanistan, but the trip drew strong condemnation from many
who accused the pair of staging a political stunt and
distracting from the mission on the ground.
Moulton rebutted that criticism, and the pair was back on
U.S. soil by the time the Kabul airport became the site of a
deadly terrorist bombing that killed dozens, including U.S.
soldiers.
The Bakers may be making the most of the waning days of
summer, but chances to win $1 million by getting vaccinated
are over.
The final two winners of the VaxMillions sweepstakes were
drawn this week, with the prizes going to Leominster's
Cynthia Thirath and Gretchen Selva, a sophomore at Four
River Charter Public School in Greenfield, who hopes to
study music.
It may never be known how many of the 2.5 million entrants
in the vaccine Lottery got the shot just for a chance to
win, but Treasurer Deb Goldberg is convinced that at the end
of the day it was a "win-win for everyone."
Rep. Andy Vargas is hoping it will
be a win-win just for him in the 2022 primary and general
elections as the Haverhill Democrat first elected to the
House in 2017 launched his campaign for state Senate this
week. Vargas is running in the district currently
represented by Sen. Diana DiZoglio, who is running statewide
for auditor. If elected, he would be the first
Dominican-American to be sworn into the Massachusetts
Senate.
Long before that race is decided, a new state representative
from the 4th Essex District will be seated in the House.
Rep. Brad Hill plans to leave next month to become the
newest member of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, and
the House this week set the election dates to replace him.
The primaries will be held on Nov. 2, followed by a general
election on Nov. 30 as the Republican Party -- down to 30
seats in the House -- attempts to stop the bleeding and hold
on to a seat held by Hill since he was first elected in
1998.
Trailing in new public and internal polls released this week
that showed City Councilor Michelle Wu leading the pack to
become the next mayor of Boston, Mayor Kim Janey pulled back
the city's waterfront redevelopment plan, casting fresh
doubt on plans for 600-foot tower on the site of the Boston
Harbor Garage next to the New England Aquarium.
There's intense interest in what happens to Boston's
waterfront, and understandably so, but Hampden District
Attorney Anthony Gulluni wishes just a little more attention
could be paid to properties not along the eastern seaboard.
Gulluni pulled his staff from the Roderick Ireland
Courthouse in Springfield on Wednesday where he said the
conditions of the building had deteriorated so much that
visible mold was growing in parts of the structure.
Until a remediation team could conduct a thorough
decontamination of the building, Gulluni said prosecutors
would only work inside on an as-needed basis for trials and
other proceedings, but he also said it was time to put a
more permanent solution on the books.
"I believe that if we were farther east this building would
have been replaced a long time ago," Gulluni said.
STORY OF THE WEEK: Public sector vaccine mandates
proliferate.
State House News
Service
Thursday, August 26, 2021
Republican-Held Mass. House Seat Up For Grabs In November
By Chris Van Buskirk
Voters in the House district represented for the past two
decades by Republican Rep. Brad Hill will choose a new
representative on Nov. 30 after the House on Thursday set a
special election date ahead of his scheduled departure to
the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
Primaries will be held on Nov. 2, the deadline to submit
nomination papers to municipalities is Sept. 21, and the
last day to file nomination papers with the secretary of
state is Sept. 28. The 4th Essex District covers the towns
of Ipswich, Hamilton, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Rowley,
Topsfield, and Wenham.
Jamie Belsito, founder of nonprofit Maternal Mental Health
Leadership Alliance, announced last week that she is
exploring a bid for the seat. A Topsfield Democrat who
challenged Congressman Seth Moulton in the 2020 primary,
Belsito said she "expects to make a decision after listening
to the district's voters and elected officials."
"I've never been afraid to take on a big challenge and fight
for what I believe in," Belsito said in a statement. "If I
run for office, I will bring that same attitude to Beacon
Hill. That means taking care of our district's families,
improving our healthcare, protecting our coastline and
riverways from pollution and climate change, and ensuring
every child has access to a high-quality public education."
Hill, who has served in the House since 1999, was selected
last week by Gov. Charlie Baker, Attorney General Maura
Healey, and Treasurer Deborah Goldberg to serve on the
commission. Hill plans to leave the House on Sept. 15.
"It has been my distinct honor and privilege to serve the
people of Massachusetts and the 4th Essex District for
nearly 25 years," Hill said in a statement issued last week.
"I am deeply grateful to the governor, treasurer, and
attorney general for this incredible opportunity to continue
supporting the Commonwealth, and am eager to begin this new
chapter working alongside my fellow Commissioners."
State House News
Service
Friday, August 27, 2021
Pressley Looks to Beacon Hill After Supreme Court Ruling on
Evictions
By Katie Lannan
After a Thursday [U.S.] Supreme Court ruling struck the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's eviction
moratorium, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley called for state
and federal action to support renters.
The high court's 6-3 ruling said Congress "must specifically
authorize" a federal eviction moratorium if it is to
continue.
"It is indisputable that the public has a strong interest in
combating the spread of the COVID–19 Delta variant. But our
system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in
pursuit of desirable ends," the ruling said.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion that was
joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Pressley said policymakers at all levels of government need
to take quick action to prevent an "impending eviction
crisis." She said the court's decision comes with "just over
half of people in the United States fully vaccinated,
breakthrough infections surging, and only 11 percent of
federal emergency rental assistance funds distributed by
states and localities."
"In Massachusetts, the Baker administration must expedite
the disbursement of these federal emergency rental
assistance funds, and I urge my colleagues in the state
legislature to swiftly pass the COVID-19 Housing Equity
legislation to strengthen eviction protections and help keep
families safely housed," the Dorchester Democrat said in a
statement. "Congress should immediately pass legislation to
extend the federal eviction moratorium for the duration of
the pandemic, which would allow more time for renters and
small landlords to receive emergency rental assistance."
The bill (S 891) Pressley singled out, filed by Sen.
Patricia Jehlen, would revive a temporary state-level ban on
evictions and foreclosures. Reps. Frank Moran and Kevin
Honan filed a House version (H 1434), and 82 lawmakers had
signed onto the bills ahead of a Housing Committee hearing
earlier this month.
The Boston
Herald
Saturday, August 28, 2021
Supreme Court overturns Biden’s eviction moratorium,
leaving Massachusetts renters at risk
By Amy Sokolow
The Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration’s
stopgap eviction moratorium late Thursday night, leaving
Massachusetts residents vulnerable to eviction once again
before it was set to expire in October.
“In this moment where we have continued impacts from
COVID-19… I was really shocked, horrified, and disappointed
that, despite the way this was very narrowly crafted, the
Supreme Court currently has struck it down,” state Rep. Mike
Connolly, D-Cambridge, said of the moratorium.
The moratorium, put in place earlier this month, was set to
expire on Oct. 3 and only applied to renters living in areas
of “substantial” and “high” transmission of COVID-19.
Connolly added that the burden was primarily on renters to
show that they were impacted by the pandemic.
“This wasn’t a blanket moratorium, it was very narrowly
tailored to those who are truly impacted and vulnerable,”
Connolly said.
State Sen. Pat Jehlen, D-Somerville, added that the federal
moratorium was designed to stop the spread of COVID-19,
since those who are evicted are forced to move into other
households, shelters or onto the street.
Many landlords were also supportive of the moratorium.
“Landlords and renters are gonna lose with this, because the
CDC moratorium was pretty reasonable compared to what the
state of Massachusetts Legislature did to us last year and
wants to do again,” said Doug Quattrochi, executive director
of trade association MassLandlords, in reference to Gov.
Charlie Baker’s more stringent statewide eviction moratorium
that expired in October.
Jehlen filed legislation in the state Senate, and state
Reps. Kevin Honan, D-Boston, and Frank Moran, D-Lawrence,
filed in the House that would ensure landlords work with
tenants to secure rental assistance before evicting, provide
stronger eviction protections for vulnerable households
including those with children and elderly people, pause
no-fault evictions and foreclosures and streamline the
rental assistance process.
Quattrochi and other landlords have been frustrated by the
slow rollout of millions of rental assistance dollars at the
state’s disposal, but would rather see that process
expedited and the moratorium extended than the current
situation.
“Nobody wants to be that landlord who’s evicting a renter in
the middle of a pandemic,” he said. “It’s terrible optics,
and it’s extremely traumatizing and potentially dangerous
for the family being evicted.”
The Boston
Globe
Saturday, August 28, 2021
More than 300,000 will soon lose jobless benefits in Mass.
The looming cutoff reveals an economy divided by extremes
By Katie Johnston
In the ultimate act of unfortunate timing, the pandemic-era
unemployment benefits for some 7.5 million people will run
out on or just before Labor Day, the federal holiday that
honors the contributions of American workers.
The largest such cutoff in history, affecting more than
300,000 in Massachusetts, is taking place as the coronavirus
pandemic that caused unprecedented job losses escalates once
again, casting a shadow over a still shaky employment
landscape.
Employers grappling with staffing shortages have been
watching the date with great anticipation, hoping the loss
of weekly checks will spur people back into the job market.
Congress, which has extended jobless benefits several times,
is not expected to do so again.
The looming cutoff of benefits reveals a Massachusetts
economy that, now more than ever, is a picture of extremes
between the haves and the have nots, one that breaks along
racial lines and keeps low-wage workers from moving up the
ladder. The pandemic has sharpened people’s desire to
improve their lives by moving away from dead-end jobs, but
longstanding barriers are once again holding low-wage
workers back, just as they are about to lose the only safety
net they have.
A great number of those on the sidelines work in
still-struggling service sectors, including hotels with
empty rooms, and restaurants and cleaning firms that cater
to office employees still working from home. Closures of day
care centers have made it difficult for parents to work, as
has the increased use of technology for virtual job fairs
and online applications, especially for immigrants with
limited English skills.
Moreover, the pandemic has prompted some unemployed workers
to reconsider returning to low-paid, public-facing service
jobs that could put their families at risk as the highly
contagious Delta variant rages. Some of those jobs pay just
enough for them to lose their MassHealth medical benefits,
but not enough to live on.
“Reopening the bottom part of this economy is hell,” said
John Drew, chief executive of Action for Boston Community
Development, an antipoverty agency that itself cannot find
enough child care workers to staff all of its Head Start
classrooms. For those on unemployment who have used the time
and benefits to pursue a new career, Drew said, the mind-set
seems to be: “Maybe I can do better than going back to that
lousy job I had.”
The vast majority of the nation’s unemployed people will
lose their supplemental income from three temporary federal
programs that, in Massachusetts, expire Sept. 4: extended
benefits for the long-term unemployed, special aid for
gig-economy workers, and a $300 weekly supplement.
A great number of those affected in Massachusetts will be
people of color, who have already suffered
disproportionately during the pandemic; the unemployment
rate in the state over the past 12 months for whites is 6.3
percent, but 9.8 percent for Black people, and 11.8 percent
for Latinos.
Such high rates for people of color would be considered a
“national emergency” if they applied to the entire
population, according to Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at
The Century Foundation who has been closely studying
unemployment.
When the pandemic hit, Kamal Elkarfa had been driving for
Uber and installing surveillance cameras. With a baby at
home in Everett born with respiratory issues, Elkarfa felt
he had no choice but to stop working. Aided by unemployment
checks, along with free child care and grocery money from
the federal nutrition program, SNAP, Elkarfa and his wife,
Zainab Hmito, started taking online classes at Bunker Hill
Community College — Elkarfa pursuing a certificate in Web
development and Hmito taking prerequisite courses for a
nursing degree.
The couple, who are from Morocco, have been looking for jobs
to make up for the $600-a-week loss in unemployment
benefits. But the plan is for Elkarfa to finish his final
two classes and find something better.
The couple decided “let’s use this time, go back to school,”
said Hmito, 38, who worked at Dunkin’ Donuts before their
second child was born. “Once it’s over, we can get better
jobs with financial stability, and maybe it comes with extra
time to spend with the kids instead of working two shifts
making coffee and sandwiches.”
Massachusetts has the sixth-highest number of unemployed
workers set to lose benefits, according to The Century
Foundation. And, in keeping with a national trend, those on
the bottom rungs are being hit hardest. Employment rates for
people in Massachusetts making below the national median
wage — around $37,000 a year — fell 11.1 percent from just
before the pandemic, while they rose 2.6 percent for those
making above the median, according to Opportunity Insights,
a research organization at Harvard University.
There is no shortage of jobs: more than 237,000 openings in
Massachusetts, according to the state’s executive office of
labor and workforce development. The agency recently held a
weeklong virtual job fair — the largest in state history —
and is planning to use federal COVID-relief money to retrain
52,000 people.
With an unemployment rate below the national level, at 4.9
percent, and high vaccination levels, Labor Secretary
Rosalin Acosta said in a recent briefing that overall, the
Massachusetts economy is in a relatively good place, but she
acknowledged getting people back to work will be a long
process.
The increased reliance on technology to train and hire
workers, and a lack of assistance for non-English speakers
to access that technology, is a major concern, said Karen
Chen, executive director of the Chinese Progressive
Association.
“I think the digital divide is going to continue to be a
problem,” she said.
At the same time, more people want jobs that can be done
from home, said Caroline Koty, a senior mobility mentor at
the Boston antipoverty nonprofit Economic Mobility Pathways.
But not everyone has the experience to do so. Koty currently
works with 15 households, five of which will soon be
completely cut off from unemployment benefits, several of
them run by single mothers who worked in hospitals, nail
salons, restaurants, and security jobs.
“It’s so competitive,” Koty said. “Everyone in the world
wants remote job opportunities right now.”
Even people with years of experience and advanced degrees
are struggling. Linda Eknoian, a 50-plus former federal
government contractor in Boston who was let go in December,
has a master’s degree, but is frustrated by the lack of
response to her job applications.
“I think a lot of it has to do with age,” said Eknoian, who
will lose $300 a week after the cutoff but is still eligible
for regular unemployment.
Meanwhile, some frustrated employers are holding out hope
that the expiration of benefits will solve their labor
shortages.
Amrheins restaurant in South Boston recently posted a note
on its door asking customers to be patient as it struggles
with a lack of employees: “Sadly, due to government
handouts, no one wants to work anymore.”
Neil Abramson, owner of the Cutie Patuties and Cutiques
consignment stores and a warehouse in Leominster, has made a
few hires recently, including several people who previously
worked in education and health care and were tired of the
“rat race,” and one woman who was let go from a nursing home
because she refused to get vaccinated. But he still has to
close one store early every day due to a lack of staff.
As Sept. 4 approaches, however, he’s seeing more interest:
he posted ads for two jobs and received 16 applications in
the first 18 hours; in July, similar postings received just
12 applications over an entire month.
But Abramson is picky — and not interested in hiring someone
who was “willing to sit home just to collect the check,”
noting, “those people don’t typically make great workers.”
Employers generally prefer to hire people who are still
working; so, those who’ve been on unemployment since the
start of the pandemic, by choice or not, may be less
appealing to hiring managers.
Moreover, just because benefits are going away doesn’t
necessarily mean the unemployed will flood the job market,
studies have shown. Arindrajit Dube, an economist at the
University of Massachusetts Amherst, found that in 12 states
that ended unemployment assistance in June, the number of
people with paid employment actually fell, by around 1.4
percent, by early July.
The labor shortage may have less to do with extended
benefits than the sheer number of employers trying to hire
workers at the same time, said Peter Cappelli, a management
professor at The Wharton School at the University of
Pennsylvania. That, and widespread fears about the virus,
are what makes the current situation unusual, he said.
Enhanced jobless benefits have also allowed job seekers to
be more choosy. “It just means that people aren’t so
desperate,” he said.
But now that this extra income is going away, some people
are starting to feel that way.
Delmy Martinez, 36, who lost her job cleaning offices in
downtown Boston at the start of the pandemic, just found out
her $460 a week unemployment check is ending. “That’s why I
think I always have a headache,” she said, speaking in
Spanish through a translator.
Her husband still works installing hardwood floors, but her
loss of benefits means Martinez may not be able to pay her
cellphone bill or buy rheumatoid arthritis medicine for her
mother in Guatemala. Martinez has looked for jobs in
restaurants and at a tortilla factory, but still hopes to
return to her union cleaning position, which allowed her to
work nights while her husband stayed home with their
children in Revere.
She made more on unemployment than she did working, but
worries that being out of work for so long will hurt her
application for political asylum.
“I don’t want to look like a burden on the state,” she said.
Ishwar Lamichhane has applied for more than 300 jobs, with
no results, even after taking IT classes to expand his
options. Lamichhane, 46, who’s from Nepal, was the assistant
manager at Out of Town News in Harvard Square for 11 years
when it closed in the fall of 2019, and he’s been searching
for work ever since, mostly in IT customer service and help
desk support. It’s been a frustrating experience. Lamichhane
said he’s seen entry-level contractor positions that still
require years of experience, and found so few opportunities
at the recent state job fair that he considered the whole
thing a “mirage.”
He and his wife, who has returned to work part time at a
Newton spa, are about to be “abandoned” by the government
when their unemployment benefits run out, Lamichhane said.
If he doesn’t find work soon, Lamichhane isn’t sure how he’s
going to pay the mortgage on their house in Medford.
“Only God knows,” he said.
The Boston
Globe
Thursday, August 26, 2021
A Boston Globe editorial
The Massachusetts estate tax is in need of an overhaul
Our tax starts too low — and then reaches even lower
Over the last three decades, Massachusetts has made a
reasonably successful effort to shed the “Taxachusetts”
label that once followed the Commonwealth like a shadow —
but there’s at least one area where more work needs to be
done.
That’s the estate tax.
It’s not so much that the Commonwealth is one of only 12
states (plus Washington, D.C.) that taxes estates after
death, but rather the way it’s done. The current estate tax,
whose reach includes financial assets such as stocks, bonds,
401(k)s, IRAs, and proceeds from life insurance policies, as
well as houses and other real estate, plus vehicles, boats,
and assorted other possessions, kicks in at anything above
$1 million in total value. Nationally, that ties
Massachusetts with Oregon for the lowest
estate-tax-triggering level.
One hardly needs to have been wealthy for an estate to trip
on that earthly threshold when the person wanders across a
more metaphysical one. Not in the Greater Boston area, where
the median price of a single-family home hit $811,000 in
June. A person who has a home appraised at $700,000, plus a
combined $275,001 in a 401(k) or IRA, and a vehicle worth
$25,000 would hit that level.
“The low exemption has made it essentially a middle-class
tax burden if you own real estate in the Commonwealth,”
notes Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation.
Once an estate reaches the taxation threshold, Massachusetts
has this unusual (and compared with other estate-tax states,
regressive) feature: The tax isn’t assessed just on the
value above $1 million. Rather, after a $40,000 exemption,
the levy applies to the entire value of the remaining
estate. (Oregon, contrariwise, only taxes the value of an
estate in excess of $1 million.)
All that puts Massachusetts out of step not just nationally
but even within New England.
To be sure, the estate tax is a good deal more avoidable
than the grim reaper himself. It doesn’t apply to a couple’s
jointly owned property or assets upon the death of the first
spouse. The ownership of that simply shifts, untaxed, to the
surviving party. For couples who have planned well, says
Massachusetts lawyer and estate-planning specialist Harry S.
Margolis, one common method of sheltering a larger
percentage of an estate for their eventual heirs is to set
up a trust to keep up to $1 million out of the estate of the
surviving spouse but still available for her or his use if
necessary. That’s allowable because each person has a $1
million exclusion, as long as they think to exercise it
before departing this world. (There are, of course, other
ways to shelter more of an estate, but many of them get
positively baroque and require significant foresight and
planning.)
For those who failed to do that pre-departure planning while
they walked among us, however, the estate tax kicks in at
the $1 million level upon the death of the second party.
To what degree state taxation drives relocation decisions is
a hotly debated topic. Conservatives contend it does;
liberals are dubious.
There isn’t any current study indicating that the
Massachusetts estate tax itself is driving out-of-state
migration among average retirees, though there is evidence
of such an effect with the super-rich. However, anecdotally,
various people say financial advisers have brought up the
possibility of establishing one’s primary residence
elsewhere as part of an estate-tax-reduction strategy.
Amy Pitter, who served as Department of Revenue commissioner
under governor Deval Patrick and is now president of the
Massachusetts Society of CPAs, believes the estate tax as
currently configured could well provide a nudge to
higher-income couples to establish their primary residence
in a different state, something they can do relatively
easily.
“For these people, it’s not a matter of ‘packing up and
moving to Florida,’ ” she said via e-mail. “It means that
where before they considered Massachusetts their home but
spent the winter in Florida, now they can spend an extra
month or so in Florida, but also vote there and consider it
their home.” That, she says, is what their financial
advisers or CPAs will recommend.
So what’s to be done? State Representative Shawn Dooley,
Republican of Norfolk and a former financial planner, has
proposed eliminating the reach-down provision so the estate
tax applies only to the estate value that exceeds the
tax-tripping threshold. His plan would also allow an estate
to realize the benefits of two personal exclusions even if a
couple didn’t set up trusts. Both would be smart changes.
His plan also calls for setting the value of those personal
exemptions at $2.75 million per person, with an additional
exclusion of $2.75 million in primary-residence property
value, the better to encourage people to stay domiciled in
Massachusetts.
Given the exclusions in New York ($5.9 million), Vermont ($5
million), and Maine ($5.8 million), and escalating home
values in Massachusetts, a total estate-tax exemption in the
$3 million-$5 million range seems appropriate. That level
should then be indexed to inflation.
Dooley says his legislation, which would also reduce from 20
to four the number of estate tax rates, would cost the state
about $60 million a year, or about 12 percent of the
approximately $500 million in estate tax revenue projected
for fiscal 2022. That’s a manageable amount for a state with
revenues currently projected at more than $34 billion; a
lower total estate-tax exclusion would obviously spell less
forgone revenue.
Progressives may object that the state shouldn’t willingly
surrender any revenue, but there’s a certain competitive
wisdom in not being too far out of step with your regional
neighbors. Estate tax reform is a worthwhile, low-cost
investment in keeping people in Massachusetts — and would
strike one more blow against the tired old moniker
Taxachusetts.
State House News
Service
Thursday, August 26, 2021
Republican-Held Mass. House Seat Up For Grabs In November
By Chris Van Buskirk
Voters in the House district represented for the past two
decades by Republican Rep. Brad Hill will choose a new
representative on Nov. 30 after the House on Thursday set a
special election date ahead of his scheduled departure to
the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
Primaries will be held on Nov. 2, the deadline to submit
nomination papers to municipalities is Sept. 21, and the
last day to file nomination papers with the secretary of
state is Sept. 28. The 4th Essex District covers the towns
of Ipswich, Hamilton, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Rowley,
Topsfield, and Wenham.
Jamie Belsito, founder of nonprofit Maternal Mental Health
Leadership Alliance, announced last week that she is
exploring a bid for the seat. A Topsfield Democrat who
challenged Congressman Seth Moulton in the 2020 primary,
Belsito said she "expects to make a decision after listening
to the district's voters and elected officials."
"I've never been afraid to take on a big challenge and fight
for what I believe in," Belsito said in a statement. "If I
run for office, I will bring that same attitude to Beacon
Hill. That means taking care of our district's families,
improving our healthcare, protecting our coastline and
riverways from pollution and climate change, and ensuring
every child has access to a high-quality public education."
Hill, who has served in the House since 1999, was selected
last week by Gov. Charlie Baker, Attorney General Maura
Healey, and Treasurer Deborah Goldberg to serve on the
commission. Hill plans to leave the House on Sept. 15.
"It has been my distinct honor and privilege to serve the
people of Massachusetts and the 4th Essex District for
nearly 25 years," Hill said in a statement issued last week.
"I am deeply grateful to the governor, treasurer, and
attorney general for this incredible opportunity to continue
supporting the Commonwealth, and am eager to begin this new
chapter working alongside my fellow Commissioners." |
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
|
