 |
Post Office Box 1147
▪
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
47 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Monday, October 4, 2021
Smith & Wesson
Abandons Massachusetts — The Diaspora Grows
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News
Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
Over the previous
couple of hours, House Democrats and Republicans had
leveled sharp accusations against one another
regarding the new House policy on vaccinations,
which requires any lawmaker or staff member who
wants to work from the State House to prove they've
been vaccinated against COVID-19.
Only one Republican
crossed the aisle to support the policy, and
opponents in the debate branded each other as
hypocrites for taking the positions they did.
But now some of those
same Democrats and Republicans who were on opposite
sides of the vote were ready to put the emotions of
the afternoon behind them to mingle and celebrate
Hill. The venue they chose was the popular Chinese
restaurant owned by the family of Rep. Donald Wong,
a Saugus Republican.
Hill, also a
Republican, had just recently ended a more than
22-year-career in the Legislature to join the
Massachusetts Gaming Commission, and his farewell
party attracted a mix of more than two dozen current
and former lawmakers who served with him, according
to photos and firsthand accounts.
"We had a very nice
time," said Rep. Paul Donato, a Medford Democrat and
assistant vice chair of the Ways and Means
Committee, who insisted that masks were worn except
when people were eating and to take a group photo.
But as those photos
began to surface on social media, some began to
question the optics, if not the public health, of
attending a mid-sized gathering indoors at a
restaurant after going to the mat for a policy that
would require proof of vaccination and universal
masking just to enter the House side of the State
House.
In addition to the
group photo, some of the pictures showed attendees
talking casually, not seated, without masks. Saugus
does not require masks in public indoor spaces as
some other cities and towns, including Boston, have
done in response to the rise of the Delta
variant....
Rep. Peter Durant, one
of the most vocal critics of the vaccine mandate,
had suggested during the debate that one only needed
to look at the Facebook pages of some lawmakers
advocating for the State House policy to find
examples of them in large crowds without a mask.
The presence of Rep.
Ann-Margaret Ferrante at the Kowloon particularly
stung Rep. Shawn Dooley.
"For her to go to the
party of one of the people who she accused of not
caring if people died, at a huge restaurant, with a
packed crowd, without a mask - shows the hypocrisy
of it all," said Dooley, who was not at the party,
but had seen the photos.
Dooley had listened to
Ferrante tell the House that it could be a matter of
life or death for her to know that the people she
works with are vaccinated and will be wearing masks.
Ferrante is currently undergoing treatment for
pancreatic cancer....
During the debate,
Ferrante said that anyone who voted against the
vaccine mandate could no longer say without being
hypocritical that they entered public service to
"serve the least among us."
"I understand the
reality that everybody has political headaches when
anything comes to the floor, but please, please,
please to my colleague I'm not even asking you, I'm
begging you don't let your political hangups, your
political challenges and your political showmanship
become my medical issues," Ferrante said.
State
House News Service
Friday, October 1, 2021
After Bitter Mandate Debate, Reps
Held Bipartisan Affair
Masks Came Off At Kowloon Party For Hill
SHNS
— Republican and Democratic lawmakers
huddle together for a group picture at
the Kowloon restaurant in Saugus on
Sept. 23, just hours after some of them
shot bitter words at each other during a
House debate over a vaccine mandate for
legislators. [Facebook]
Longtime
Springfield-based gunmaker Smith & Wesson said
Thursday that it will move its headquarters to
Tennessee, pointing to tough new gun manufacturing
laws being proposed on Beacon Hill.
The company, which has
been based in Springfield since 1852, said it will
open a new headquarters and assembly plant outside
Knoxville, Tenn., in 2023, a location it chose in
part based on that state’s “unwavering support for
the 2nd Amendment,” as well as lower costs of doing
business....
Amid mounting pressure
for tougher gun laws, the company has become
increasingly controversial in deep blue
Massachusetts, despite its long roots here. In 2018,
students from across the state rallied outside its
Springfield headquarters to call for stricter gun
laws.
Massachusetts residents
are already barred from buying the AR-15 style
semiautomatic rifles manufactured by Smith & Wesson,
but the guns can be made here and sold across state
lines. And in April, Democrats on Beacon Hill filed
a bill to ban the manufacture of certain kinds of
firearms unless they are intended for sale to the
military or law enforcement. If passed, it would
keep Massachusetts-made assault weapons out of the
hands of private citizens.
In its announcement
Thursday, Smith & Wesson pointed to that bill —
which it called “arbitrary and damaging” — as a
major factor in its decision to relocate. The
company said the bill would block production of guns
that account for more than 60 percent of its
sales....
State Representative
Bud Williams, a Democrat who represents Springfield
and has backed the bill, said Thursday he was
“disappointed” at Smith & Wesson for behaving like a
“typical bottom-line American company, thinking
about money and not lives.”
“It’s just greed,
that’s all there is,” Williams said. “At some point
in time, as a society, we have to make some tough
decisions. … At what point does human life have any
value?” ...
“We are left with no
choice but to relocate these functions to a state
that does not propose burdensome restrictions on our
company,” Smith said....
“The strong support we
have received from the State of Tennessee and the
entire leadership of Blount County throughout this
process, combined with the quality of life, outdoor
lifestyle, and low cost of living in the Greater
Knoxville area has left no doubt that Tennessee is
the ideal location for Smith & Wesson’s new
headquarters,” he said....
Still, the move will
wipe out roughly 500 jobs in Springfield, a loss
Mayor Domenic J. Sarno called “devastating.” “My
number one priority will be to assist these
employees and their families in any way we possibly
can,” Sarno said in a statement.
Officials with the
Baker administration did not immediately return
messages seeking comment Thursday.
At least some in Massachusetts won’t be sorry to see
Smith & Wesson go. John Rosenthal, who heads the
group Stop Handgun Violence and has pushed the bill
to restrict gun-making in the state, called the news
“a win for public safety.”
“I hate to see
Massachusetts lose jobs. … But these are jobs that
are frankly leading to mass shootings,” he said.
“Good riddance to Smith & Wesson, as far as I’m
concerned.”
The
Boston Globe
Thursday, September 30, 2021
Longtime Springfield-based
gunmaker Smith & Wesson said Thursday that
it will move its headquarters to Tennessee, pointing
to tough new gun manufacturing laws
being proposed on Beacon Hill
Firearm manufacturer
Smith & Wesson announced Thursday that it will move
its headquarters and "significant elements of its
operations" from Springfield to Maryville, Tenn.,
citing a greater embrace of Second Amendment rights
and a more favorable business environment in the
Volunteer State....
"Regardless of one's
personal views on gun control, this move is bad news
for the hundreds of families who will lose stable,
well-paying jobs," Sen. Eric Lesser, who represents
parts of Springfield, said. "Looking forward, I've
already begun conversations with relevant public and
private sector leaders about suitable reuse of the
space and ways to assist the 550 impacted employees
through training, job placement, and other means. It
is my hope that the location remains vibrant and in
keeping with the proud manufacturing tradition of
our region."
Smith & Wesson
President and CEO Mark Smith said legislation
proposed on Beacon Hill that would prohibit his
company and others from manufacturing certain types
of guns and accessories, like assault weapons and
high-capacity magazines covered under the state's
existing ban on their purchase and possession,
factored into the company's choice to decamp to a
new Tennessee headquarters.
"These bills would
prevent Smith & Wesson from manufacturing firearms
that are legal in almost every state in America and
that are safely used by tens of millions of
law-abiding citizens every day exercising their
Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights, protecting
themselves and their families, and enjoying the
shooting sports," Smith said. "While we are hopeful
that this arbitrary and damaging legislation will be
defeated in this session, these products made up
over 60% of our revenue last year, and the
unfortunate likelihood that such restrictions would
be raised again led to a review of the best path
forward for Smith & Wesson."
State
House News Service
Thursday, September 30, 2021
Moving HQ From Mass., Smith &
Wesson Takes Aim At Gun Bills
Whether one is cheering
or booing the impending exit of Smith & Wesson from
Massachusetts depends on which side of the gun
debate you’re on. Second Amendment advocates view
the legislation that sparked the gun maker’s move as
an incursion on those rights. Opponents of assault
weapons who prompted the bill are likely happy to
see such a manufacturer leave the state.
But there is a larger
takeaway from this: if you don’t like what’s on the
menu, you can go to another restaurant.
Which is precisely what
Smith & Wesson did in the face of legislation filed
this year that would ban Massachusetts companies
from manufacturing weapons and devices covered under
the existing military-style assault weapons purchase
ban, exempting those to be sold to law enforcement
or the military....
There will be more
Smith & Wessons, not just gun manufacturers, and not
just in Massachusetts, but companies and individuals
who see the way the legislative winds are blowing
and decide to hit the road.
A Boston
Herald editorial
Friday, October 1, 2021
Smith & Wesson’s lesson – vote
with your feet
The House last week
passed, despite the governor's veto, a change in
state tax law to allow the owners of partnerships
and S corporations to avoid the federal limit on
state and local tax deductions, but the Pioneer
Institute said Monday the change will not be enough
to avoid compounding effects if voters next year
approve a surtax on household income above $1
million....
"After the authors of
the proposed graduated tax in Massachusetts
submitted their proposal for legislative approval in
2017, the federal government placed a $10,000
limitation of deductibility of state and local taxes
on federal tax returns. This unforeseen change in
the federal tax code had the effect of turning what
would have been a 58 percent increase in average
state income tax payments among Massachusetts
millionaires, from $160,786 to $254,355, into what
is essentially a 147 percent increase when the
federal SALT limitation is included in the
calculation," the Pioneer report concluded. "This
substantial change should be taken into
consideration by voters when they contemplate
approving the surtax proposal."
The state budget
approved this summer included a provision to allow
the Department of Revenue to implement an optional
pass-through entity excise in the amount of personal
income tax owed on a member's flow-through income
and a corresponding tax credit equal to 90 percent
of the member's portion of the excise. Gov. Charlie
Baker vetoed the provision in favor of his own
proposal to return 100 percent of the excise to the
taxpayer but the House last week overrode his veto
(H 4009) and the Senate could follow suit.
State
House News Service
Monday, September 27, 2021
Report: SALT Change Compounds Surtax
Impacts On High Earners
Nearly a decade after
voters narrowly rejected a ballot question seeking
to legalize medical aid in dying, state lawmakers
are once again set to delve into the emotional
testimony, ethical debates and logistical questions
around the issue.
Ahead of a Friday
Public Health Committee hearing on bills (H 2381, S
1384) that would allow terminally ill patients who
meet certain criteria to request and be prescribed a
lethal dose of medication to end their lives,
supporters and opponents each held video calls to
make their case.
Backers, including some
patients with incurable diseases who want to be able
to make decisions about the end of their lives,
present the policy as a way to relieve pain and
suffering when death is imminent and note that 10
other states have adopted some version of the
measure.
Those who oppose it
warn of potential disparate impacts on people with
disabilities, people of color and people who cannot
afford life-extending treatments, and say that
palliative and home care should instead be made more
accessible....
Versions of the bills
have been filed for years on Beacon Hill. Last year,
the Public Health Committee redrafted and advanced
the bills to the Health Care Financing Committee,
which did not take further action on them.
[Kim Callinan of
Compassion & Choices] said this session's
legislation has more than 80 cosponsors, including
Rep. Ted Phillips, who wrote the first draft of the
bill in 2008 as a staffer to its longtime
legislative proponent, former Rep. Louis Kafka.
"This bill is not for
everyone," Phillips said. "We have worked very, very
hard over the years to make it very clear in the
legislation that there is no ambiguity around who
this bill affects, that this decision cannot be made
for you. This decision would be yours alone."
State
House News Service
Thursday, September 30, 2021
Emotional Arguments Precede Aid
in Dying Hearing
Bill Cleared One Committee, Died In Another Last
Session
".
. . It is too
late for Barbara Anderson, but this presents yet another
opportunity for others in such straits. H2381/S1384 (“An
Act relative to end of life options”) is before this
committee. This legislation would provide a medically
doomed individual with a personal and compassionate exit
plan, by their own decision, their own choice. It would
remove government from everyone’s last and most personal
decision in life. H2381/S1384 deserves to be passed into
law, finally. . . ."
Testimony in favor of
H2381/S1384
(An Act relative to end of life options)
From Chip Ford
Friday, October 2, 2021 |
|
Last week Massachusetts
got to experience its own California Gov. Gavin
Newsom French Laundry episode of blatant hypocrisy
— "Mandates for thee but not for me!"
On Friday the State
House News Service reported ("After Bitter Mandate Debate, Reps
Held Bipartisan Affair
Masks Came Off At Kowloon Party For Hill"):
Over the previous
couple of hours, House Democrats and Republicans had
leveled sharp accusations against one another
regarding the new House policy on vaccinations,
which requires any lawmaker or staff member who
wants to work from the State House to prove they've
been vaccinated against COVID-19.
Only one Republican
crossed the aisle to support the policy, and
opponents in the debate branded each other as
hypocrites for taking the positions they did.
But now some of those
same Democrats and Republicans who were on opposite
sides of the vote were ready to put the emotions of
the afternoon behind them to mingle and celebrate
Hill. The venue they chose was the popular Chinese
restaurant owned by the family of Rep. Donald Wong,
a Saugus Republican.
Hill, also a
Republican, had just recently ended a more than
22-year-career in the Legislature to join the
Massachusetts Gaming Commission, and his farewell
party attracted a mix of more than two dozen current
and former lawmakers who served with him, according
to photos and firsthand accounts.
"We had a very nice
time," said Rep. Paul Donato, a Medford Democrat and
assistant vice chair of the Ways and Means
Committee, who insisted that masks were worn except
when people were eating and to take a group photo.
But as those photos
began to surface on social media, some began to
question the optics, if not the public health, of
attending a mid-sized gathering indoors at a
restaurant after going to the mat for a policy that
would require proof of vaccination and universal
masking just to enter the House side of the State
House.
In addition to the
group photo, some of the pictures showed attendees
talking casually, not seated, without masks....
Rep. Peter Durant, one
of the most vocal critics of the vaccine mandate,
had suggested during the debate that one only needed
to look at the Facebook pages of some lawmakers
advocating for the State House policy to find
examples of them in large crowds without a mask.
Leading national firearms
manufacturer Smith & Wesson announced its exodus from
Massachusetts last week, joining the growing Bay State diaspora.
Though inevitable it seemed to take forever —
but was only a matter
of time.
I’ve wondered for many
years just what was keeping S&W in the rabidly anti-Second
Amendment, anti-gun People’s Republic of Massachusetts. Founded and
manufacturing firearms in Springfield since 1852 that legacy is
worth only so much. Reality finally was acknowledged.
Smith & Wesson had no choice but to cut its losses and liberate
its international business.
Also see: “Massachusetts
one of top states for gun manufacturing” (April 8, 2018)
Just as
with "The Cradle of Liberty," Massachusetts has rejected another of its
historic distinctions.
BTW
— Many years ago I debated gun-control zealot John Rosenthal,
mentioned in the Boston Globe report, as guests on a New England
Cable News program. He was then and remains an utterly pompous
jerk.
“I hate to see Massachusetts lose
jobs. … But these are jobs that are frankly leading to mass
shootings,” he said. “Good riddance to Smith & Wesson, as far as
I’m concerned.”
Of course Rosenthal, like
most of his authoritarian ilk, doesn't depend on Smith & Wesson to support
his family, or his
community's tax base.
As The Boston
Herald editorial on Friday noted ("Smith & Wesson’s lesson – vote
with your feet"):
Whether one is cheering
or booing the impending exit of Smith & Wesson from
Massachusetts depends on which side of the gun
debate you’re on. Second Amendment advocates view
the legislation that sparked the gun maker’s move as
an incursion on those rights. Opponents of assault
weapons who prompted the bill are likely happy to
see such a manufacturer leave the state.
But there is a larger
takeaway from this: if you don’t like what’s on the
menu, you can go to another restaurant.
Which is precisely what
Smith & Wesson did in the face of legislation filed
this year that would ban Massachusetts companies
from manufacturing weapons and devices covered under
the existing military-style assault weapons purchase
ban, exempting those to be sold to law enforcement
or the military....
There will be more
Smith & Wessons, not just gun manufacturers, and not
just in Massachusetts, but companies and individuals
who see the way the legislative winds are blowing
and decide to hit the road.
How many productive,
taxpaying individuals and businesses can be driven out of
Massachusetts by Leftist radicals before the economic damage becomes
irreparable, irreversible? It looks like we'll find out
— likely sooner than later.
Continuing the topic of
chasing out the productive taxpayers, the
State
House News Service reported on Monday ("Report: SALT Change Compounds Surtax
Impacts On High Earners"):
The House last week
passed, despite the governor's veto, a change in
state tax law to allow the owners of partnerships
and S corporations to avoid the federal limit on
state and local tax deductions, but the Pioneer
Institute said Monday the change will not be enough
to avoid compounding effects if voters next year
approve a surtax on household income above $1
million....
"After the authors of
the proposed graduated tax in Massachusetts
submitted their proposal for legislative approval in
2017, the federal government placed a $10,000
limitation of deductibility of state and local taxes
on federal tax returns. This unforeseen change in
the federal tax code had the effect of turning what
would have been a 58 percent increase in average
state income tax payments among Massachusetts
millionaires, from $160,786 to $254,355, into what
is essentially a 147 percent increase when the
federal SALT limitation is included in the
calculation," the Pioneer report concluded. "This
substantial change should be taken into
consideration by voters when they contemplate
approving the surtax proposal."
The state budget
approved this summer included a provision to allow
the Department of Revenue to implement an optional
pass-through entity excise in the amount of personal
income tax owed on a member's flow-through income
and a corresponding tax credit equal to 90 percent
of the member's portion of the excise. Gov. Charlie
Baker vetoed the provision in favor of his own
proposal to return 100 percent of the excise to the
taxpayer but the House last week overrode his veto
(H 4009) and the Senate could follow suit.
These entrenched radical
lawmakers that control Massachusetts are either incredibly
short-sighted, hopelessly ignorant, or simply too stupid to hold
their positions. It seems as though they are intentionally
doing their utmost to destroy the commonwealth.
What's their plan for when
all that remains are those living in poverty or among the mass of
illegal immigrants?
On Friday for much of the
day the Joint Committee on Public Health held a "virtual" hearing on
the latest "Death With Dignity" bill, which would allow those with
incurable illnesses and confronting imminent death the option of ending their
pain and suffering with the assistance of their medical provider.
As an individual, I again
provided my personal written testimony in favor of
its adoption, as I have since Barbara Anderson passed away from
leukemia cursing this most personal choice being denied by law to
her by the government. Here's an excerpt from my testimony:
In her last
column published while she was alive (“High
walls and hard lessons,” March 27, 2016) Barbara wrote:
“When I get
angry, it’s when my own rights are attacked. For instance,
as I get older, I want the right to choose assisted suicide
should I be in a ‘ready to die’ mode. But no, despite my
having left the Catholic Church 55 years ago, it still had
the power to fight a ballot question that would give me
personal autonomy over its religious doctrine. My own
emotions don’t usually run deep, my being a rational,
logical person and all, but I admit to hating the voters who
said no to the recent ‘death with dignity’ ballot question;
hope they live long enough to regret it. Or better still,
hope the bill supporting doctor-assisted suicide filed by my
state Rep. Lori Ehrlich passes this year.”
Eleven days
later Barbara left us. Her final column, written in advance
of the end looming over her, “Fighting
pirates with the Lost Boys” was published posthumously
on Apr. 11, 2016. Barbara wrote:
“Darn, I
knew this was going to happen someday.
“If you’re
reading this, I’m dead.
“‘Second
star to the right and on ‘til morning’ — now I never have to
grow up, much less grow old.
“I was in
the autumn of my life. I figure that the years until I
became a mother were spring, then there was summer til about
50, then autumn til death, which may be a lot like winter:
you hibernate until the next spring comes around and you get
another chance to enjoy the seasons. Unless autumn gets
extended because you don’t die when you really ought to, and
hang around deteriorating because the government thinks you
don’t have a right to die when you want.
“If,
despite my living will and various plans to control my
dying, I end up hanging around, then I curse the government
for the last time, though certainly not the only.” . . .
It is too
late for Barbara Anderson, but this presents yet another
opportunity for others in such straits. H2381/S1384 (“An
Act relative to end of life options”) is before this
committee. This legislation would provide a medically
doomed individual with a personal and compassionate exit
plan, by their own decision, their own choice. It would
remove government from everyone’s last and most personal
decision in life. H2381/S1384 deserves to be passed into
law, finally.
I had the
"virtual" committee hearing playing for most of the day on
one computer monitor as I worked from the other.
Another thought crossed my mind while watching/listening to
the self-righteous opponents’ "ethics" arguments. If they
and government claim the power to decree when an individual
CANNOT die, how long before they can decree when an
individual MUST? Their position creates a “slippery
slope” far more dangerous than what they warn could
potentially be unintended consequences of passage.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
State House News
Service
Friday, October 1, 2021
After Bitter Mandate Debate, Reps Held Bipartisan Affair
Masks Came Off At Kowloon Party For Hill
By Matt Murphy
SHNS
— Republican and
Democratic lawmakers huddle together for a group
picture at the Kowloon restaurant in Saugus on
Sept. 23, just hours after some of them shot
bitter words at each other during a House debate
over a vaccine mandate for legislators. [Facebook]
Brad Hill was already at the
Kowloon Restaurant in Saugus last Thursday when his former
colleagues from the Legislature started to arrive late.
Over the previous couple of hours, House Democrats and
Republicans had leveled sharp accusations against one
another regarding the new House policy on vaccinations,
which requires any lawmaker or staff member who wants to
work from the State House to prove they've been vaccinated
against COVID-19.
Only one Republican crossed the aisle to support the policy,
and opponents in the debate branded each other as hypocrites
for taking the positions they did.
But now some of those same Democrats and Republicans who
were on opposite sides of the vote were ready to put the
emotions of the afternoon behind them to mingle and
celebrate Hill. The venue they chose was the popular Chinese
restaurant owned by the family of Rep. Donald Wong, a Saugus
Republican.
Hill, also a Republican, had just recently ended a more than
22-year-career in the Legislature to join the Massachusetts
Gaming Commission, and his farewell party attracted a mix of
more than two dozen current and former lawmakers who served
with him, according to photos and firsthand accounts.
"We had a very nice time," said Rep. Paul Donato, a Medford
Democrat and assistant vice chair of the Ways and Means
Committee, who insisted that masks were worn except when
people were eating and to take a group photo.
But as those photos began to surface on social media, some
began to question the optics, if not the public health, of
attending a mid-sized gathering indoors at a restaurant
after going to the mat for a policy that would require proof
of vaccination and universal masking just to enter the House
side of the State House.
In addition to the group photo, some of the pictures showed
attendees talking casually, not seated, without masks.
Saugus does not require masks in public indoor spaces as
some other cities and towns, including Boston, have done in
response to the rise of the Delta variant.
Rep. Peter Durant, one of the most vocal critics of the
vaccine mandate, had suggested during the debate that one
only needed to look at the Facebook pages of some lawmakers
advocating for the State House policy to find examples of
them in large crowds without a mask.
The presence of Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante at the Kowloon
particularly stung Rep. Shawn Dooley.
"For her to go to the party of one of the people who she
accused of not caring if people died, at a huge restaurant,
with a packed crowd, without a mask - shows the hypocrisy of
it all," said Dooley, who was not at the party, but had seen
the photos.
Dooley had listened to Ferrante tell the House that it could
be a matter of life or death for her to know that the people
she works with are vaccinated and will be wearing masks.
Ferrante is currently undergoing treatment for pancreatic
cancer.
"Yeah, you may not get COVID bad, but if I get COVID it
might be a whole hell of a lot worse," she said during the
debate.
Ferrante did not return multiple emails this week seeking to
discuss her decision to attend the Kowloon event, but
several people who were there said the Gloucester Democrat
largely sat away from the rest of the group and wore a mask.
One of those attendees was Rep. Jim O'Day, of West Boylston.
O'Day said he wasn't sure of everyone's vaccination status
at the party, but said he's vaccinated and many people,
including Ferrante, were wearing masks when they weren't
eating.
"Maybe it was a little silly of us to take our masks off for
that photo, but I can tell you in general most people were
being pretty mindful of wearing their masks," O'Day said.
When Wong arrived at his family's restaurant, he said people
were already eating, so they weren't wearing masks. He said
the event was in a room segregated from the rest of the
restaurant, and that the tables had been set up to seat
groups of four or six with plastic partitions separating the
tables.
"Everyone loved Brad Hill and I think a lot of people were
there just for him," Wong said about leaving the emotions of
the debate back on Beacon Hill.
Wong said he did not remember anyone bringing up the heated
words exchanged just hours earlier, or questioning the use
of masks or anyone's vaccination status.
"I was so mixed up in the celebration for Brad Hill, that
was one of the furthest things from my mind," said Wong, who
did recall sitting down at Ferrante's table at one point to
talk with the Democrat. "No one ever came up to me or anyone
else and asked if we should have a mask. No one mentioned
it."
Donato said he was under the impression that everyone in
attendance was vaccinated, though several other guests said
they could not be entirely sure.
Donato said the event was no different than when the
ambassador from Nepal visited the State House on Monday and
those who met with him wore masks, except when posing
briefly for a photo. He said people made sure Ferrante was
comfortable with the situation.
"Everybody had a mask on until we took the picture," Donato
said.
A handful of other attendees identified through photos of
the event did not return calls and emails seeking comment.
Other guests included Democratic Reps. Patricia Haddad and
Sean Garballey and Republican Reps. Kim Ferguson, Hannah
Kane and Lenny Mirra. Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr
attended, as did Melrose Mayor Paul Brodeur, former Sen.
Viriato deMacedo, Salem State University President John
Keenan, and former Rep. Kathi Anne Reinstein, who now heads
up external affairs for Roca in Chelsea.
The State House remains closed to the public, though the
vaccine mandate was billed by House leaders as the first in
a series of steps toward reopening the building to the
public. Even before the new vaccine policy was adopted in
the House, masks were required of lawmakers when they
entered the House chamber, and mandate supporters said the
close quarters of the chamber and the proximity of their
desks to one another made it imperative to know whether
other lawmakers were vaccinated.
During the debate, Ferrante said that anyone who voted
against the vaccine mandate could no longer say without
being hypocritical that they entered public service to
"serve the least among us."
"I understand the reality that everybody has political
headaches when anything comes to the floor, but please,
please, please to my colleague I'm not even asking you, I'm
begging you don't let your political hangups, your political
challenges and your political showmanship become my medical
issues," Ferrante said.
Despite undergoing cancer treatment in Boston, Ferrante has
continued to work and over the past several weeks has
chaired hearings virtually and attended in-person events in
her district with Gov. Charlie Baker and others where
speakers have worn masks, except when talking into the
microphone.
Ferrante did not attend last Thursday's vaccine debate at
the State House in person, choosing to speak remotely to her
colleagues, instead.
The Boston
Globe
Thursday, September 30, 2021
Longtime Springfield-based gunmaker Smith & Wesson said
Thursday
that it will move its headquarters to Tennessee,
pointing to tough new gun manufacturing laws being proposed
on Beacon Hill
By Anissa Gardizy and Emma Platoff
Longtime Springfield-based gunmaker Smith & Wesson said
Thursday that it will move its headquarters to Tennessee,
pointing to tough new gun manufacturing laws being proposed
on Beacon Hill.
The company, which has been based in Springfield since 1852,
said it will open a new headquarters and assembly plant
outside Knoxville, Tenn., in 2023, a location it chose in
part based on that state’s “unwavering support for the 2nd
Amendment,” as well as lower costs of doing business.
“This has been an extremely difficult and emotional decision
for us,” said CEO Mark Smith, in a call with investors
Thursday. “But after an exhaustive and thorough analysis,
for the continued health and strength of our iconic company,
we feel that we have been left with no other alternative.”
Smith & Wesson will retain its plant in Springfield, where
it will continue to employ roughly 1,000 people, but will
move the company’s headquarters and consolidate
manufacturing at a new $120 million facility it plans to
build in Maryville, Tenn. It’ll close plants in Connecticut
and Missouri and relocate about 750 jobs of its 2,250 jobs
nationwide to Tennessee. A gun factory in Maine will stay
open.
Amid mounting pressure for tougher gun laws, the company has
become increasingly controversial in deep blue
Massachusetts, despite its long roots here. In 2018,
students from across the state rallied outside its
Springfield headquarters to call for stricter gun laws.
Massachusetts residents are already barred from buying the
AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles manufactured by Smith &
Wesson, but the guns can be made here and sold across state
lines. And in April, Democrats on Beacon Hill filed a bill
to ban the manufacture of certain kinds of firearms unless
they are intended for sale to the military or law
enforcement. If passed, it would keep Massachusetts-made
assault weapons out of the hands of private citizens.
In its announcement Thursday, Smith & Wesson pointed to that
bill — which it called “arbitrary and damaging” — as a major
factor in its decision to relocate. The company said the
bill would block production of guns that account for more
than 60 percent of its sales.
But the measure has not become law nor even had a hearing
before the Democratic-dominated Legislature. When it was
filed, neither Senate President Karen E. Spilka nor House
Speaker Ronald Mariano took a public position on it. Neither
immediately returned a request for comment Thursday about
Smith & Wesson’s decision.
State Representative Bud Williams, a Democrat who represents
Springfield and has backed the bill, said Thursday he was
“disappointed” at Smith & Wesson for behaving like a
“typical bottom-line American company, thinking about money
and not lives.”
“It’s just greed, that’s all there is,” Williams said. “At
some point in time, as a society, we have to make some tough
decisions. … At what point does human life have any value?”
Williams said he was confident the bill would be considered
at a hearing but was not sure whether it would pass. Smith &
Wesson said they hoped the bill wouldn’t pass this year but
the prospect of it coming forth again in future legislative
sessions “led to a review of the best path forward.”
“We are left with no choice but to relocate these functions
to a state that does not propose burdensome restrictions on
our company,” Smith said.
The legislation was not the only factor Smith & Wesson cited
for the move, also pointing to greater availability of
labor, “favorable location for distribution” of their
products, and lower costs of living and doing business in
Tennessee, which has no state income tax. It was not
immediately clear if Smith & Wesson is receiving any sort of
state tax incentives for the move, though Smith said state
and local leadership in Tennessee had been very helpful in
their decision.
“The strong support we have received from the State of
Tennessee and the entire leadership of Blount County
throughout this process, combined with the quality of life,
outdoor lifestyle, and low cost of living in the Greater
Knoxville area has left no doubt that Tennessee is the ideal
location for Smith & Wesson’s new headquarters,” he said.
Any employee who wants to move will be offered a job at the
new facility, said the company, which will offer enhanced
severance to those who choose not to. And no jobs will be
affected for roughly two years.
Still, the move will wipe out roughly 500 jobs in
Springfield, a loss Mayor Domenic J. Sarno called
“devastating.”
“My number one priority will be to assist these employees
and their families in any way we possibly can,” Sarno said
in a statement.
Officials with the Baker administration did not immediately
return messages seeking comment Thursday.
At least some in Massachusetts won’t be sorry to see Smith &
Wesson go. John Rosenthal, who heads the group Stop Handgun
Violence and has pushed the bill to restrict gun-making in
the state, called the news “a win for public safety.”
“I hate to see Massachusetts lose jobs. … But these are jobs
that are frankly leading to mass shootings,” he said. “Good
riddance to Smith & Wesson, as far as I’m concerned.”
State House News
Service
Thursday, September 30, 2021
Moving HQ From Mass., Smith & Wesson Takes Aim At Gun Bills
By Colin A. Young
Firearm manufacturer Smith & Wesson announced Thursday that
it will move its headquarters and "significant elements of
its operations" from Springfield to Maryville, Tenn., citing
a greater embrace of Second Amendment rights and a more
favorable business environment in the Volunteer State.
The move, which will take place in 2023, will affect
"upwards" of 750 jobs in Massachusetts, Connecticut and
Missouri though the company said it expects to keep more
than 1,000 employees in Massachusetts, which has been its
home since its 1852 incorporation. All forging, machining,
metal finishing, and revolver assembly will continue to take
place in Massachusetts, the company announced.
"Regardless of one's personal views on gun control, this
move is bad news for the hundreds of families who will lose
stable, well-paying jobs," Sen. Eric Lesser, who represents
parts of Springfield, said. "Looking forward, I've already
begun conversations with relevant public and private sector
leaders about suitable reuse of the space and ways to assist
the 550 impacted employees through training, job placement,
and other means. It is my hope that the location remains
vibrant and in keeping with the proud manufacturing
tradition of our region."
Smith & Wesson President and CEO Mark Smith said legislation
proposed on Beacon Hill that would prohibit his company and
others from manufacturing certain types of guns and
accessories, like assault weapons and high-capacity
magazines covered under the state's existing ban on their
purchase and possession, factored into the company's choice
to decamp to a new Tennessee headquarters.
"These bills would prevent Smith & Wesson from manufacturing
firearms that are legal in almost every state in America and
that are safely used by tens of millions of law-abiding
citizens every day exercising their Constitutional 2nd
Amendment rights, protecting themselves and their families,
and enjoying the shooting sports," Smith said. "While we are
hopeful that this arbitrary and damaging legislation will be
defeated in this session, these products made up over 60% of
our revenue last year, and the unfortunate likelihood that
such restrictions would be raised again led to a review of
the best path forward for Smith & Wesson."
Legislation (HD 4192/SD 2588) filed by Rep. Marjorie Decker
and Sen. Cynthia Creem in May has been referred to the Joint
Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security and to the
Joint Committee on The Judiciary, respectively. Smith &
Wesson has drawn the ire of gun control advocates and other
activists, and its Springfield headquarters has been the
site of regular protests in recent years.
"For Smith & Wesson to cite this legislation as a reason for
moving jobs from their Springfield facility is a politically
convenient and disingenuous Trojan horse, when in fact they
are also moving jobs from Connecticut and Missouri," Decker
and Rep. Frank Moran said in a joint statement. They added,
"Even if our bill were to become law, Smith & Wesson would
still be able to manufacture these weapons in Massachusetts
for military and law enforcement use. These weapons were
designed for military use."
The Boston
Herald
Friday, October 1, 2021
A Boston Herald editorial
Smith & Wesson’s lesson – vote with your feet
Whether one is cheering or booing the impending exit of
Smith & Wesson from Massachusetts depends on which side of
the gun debate you’re on. Second Amendment advocates view
the legislation that sparked the gun maker’s move as an
incursion on those rights. Opponents of assault weapons who
prompted the bill are likely happy to see such a
manufacturer leave the state.
But there is a larger takeaway from this: if you don’t like
what’s on the menu, you can go to another restaurant.
Which is precisely what Smith & Wesson did in the face of
legislation filed this year that would ban Massachusetts
companies from manufacturing weapons and devices covered
under the existing military-style assault weapons purchase
ban, exempting those to be sold to law enforcement or the
military. As Fox News reported, those products accounted for
more than 60% of Smith & Wesson’s revenue last year, and the
company announced it was moving to Tennessee.
“This has been an extremely difficult and emotional decision
for us, but after an exhaustive and thorough analysis, for
the continued health and strength of our iconic company, we
feel that we have been left with no other alternative,”
Smith & Wesson CEO Mark Smith said in a statement.
There will be more Smith & Wessons, not just gun
manufacturers, and not just in Massachusetts, but companies
and individuals who see the way the legislative winds are
blowing and decide to hit the road.
Some won’t have to go to far, as in-person sports betting
rolled out Thursday in Connecticut, the same day Senate
President Karen Spilka said sports betting legislation in
Massachusetts was very much not on the front burner.
Temporary sportsbooks are open at Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods
Resort Casino, and mobile and online wagering is about a
week away,according to The Day.
Our Legislature will be busy as Bay Staters gas up and head
to Foxwoods or Mohegan.
“We have to do redistricting, we have to close out the books
and do a supp budget, we need to do a more permanent VOTES
act, our temporary (provisions) end in December,” Spilka
said.
And as the “free everything” crowd in D.C. rolls up their
sleeves to hike taxes, those who have the wherewithal to
move to states with more favorable corporate tax rates, or
countries, will do so at the first chance.
Those who don’t have such mobility are still not stuck with
the Special of the Day.
As the New York Post reported, an internal committee
document obtained by the paper found Democrats are juicing
up tax hike proposals in order to pay for some of their debt
balloon.
These include taxing stock buybacks — one of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren’s favorite projects. When a company buys back its
stock, it often gooses the stock price as it takes shares
out of circulation. The proposal could apply an “excise tax”
to companies that buy back a significant amount of stock.
Also on board — imposing a “CEO pay disparity” excise tax on
companies whose chief executives make more than a certain
percentage of the average worker’s pay. Nothing like the
government telling companies how much its officers should
earn.
The inanities of the spending spree and the generous
servings of pork have been well publicized — as have the
displeasure of many voters.
It will be interesting to see what’s on the menu after the
midterms.
State House News
Service
Monday, September 27, 2021
Report: SALT Change Compounds Surtax Impacts On High Earners
By Colin A. Young
The House last week passed, despite the governor's veto, a
change in state tax law to allow the owners of partnerships
and S corporations to avoid the federal limit on state and
local tax deductions, but the Pioneer Institute said Monday
the change will not be enough to avoid compounding effects
if voters next year approve a surtax on household income
above $1 million.
The 2017 federal tax law capped state and local tax (SALT)
deductions at $10,000, increasing the liability on higher
earners and property owners in Massachusetts and other
states with relatively high taxes and property values. In a
whitepaper published Monday, Pioneer said the cap "will
greatly exacerbate the adverse effects" of a proposed 4
percent state surtax on household income greater than $1
million, a proposal the organization has long opposed.
"After the authors of the proposed graduated tax in
Massachusetts submitted their proposal for legislative
approval in 2017, the federal government placed a $10,000
limitation of deductibility of state and local taxes on
federal tax returns. This unforeseen change in the federal
tax code had the effect of turning what would have been a 58
percent increase in average state income tax payments among
Massachusetts millionaires, from $160,786 to $254,355, into
what is essentially a 147 percent increase when the federal
SALT limitation is included in the calculation," the Pioneer
report concluded. "This substantial change should be taken
into consideration by voters when they contemplate approving
the surtax proposal."
The state budget approved this summer included a provision
to allow the Department of Revenue to implement an optional
pass-through entity excise in the amount of personal income
tax owed on a member's flow-through income and a
corresponding tax credit equal to 90 percent of the member's
portion of the excise. Gov. Charlie Baker vetoed the
provision in favor of his own proposal to return 100 percent
of the excise to the taxpayer but the House last week
overrode his veto (H 4009) and the Senate could follow suit.
But Pioneer said Monday that a workaround, with a credit at
either 90 percent or 100 percent, would "not diminish the
amount of surtax payments Massachusetts taxpayers will owe
DOR if state voters approve the graduated income tax."
"It appears that neither the [workaround] tax credit nor the
taxpayer's state tax liability are relevant to the proposed
constitutional amendment because the additional 4 percent
surtax is charged by calculating the total amount of annual
taxable income, not the amount of taxes due on that income,"
Pioneer said.
Roughly 55,500 Massachusetts personal income tax filers
would benefit from a pass-through entity (PTE) tax
workaround and could save up to an average of $20,158 in
federal taxes annually, DOR estimated in a March report.
The Senate as early as Thursday could complete the override
initiated by the House last week.
State House News
Service
Thursday, September 30, 2021
Emotional Arguments Precede Aid in Dying Hearing
Bill Cleared One Committee, Died In Another Last Session
By Katie Lannan
Nearly a decade after voters narrowly rejected a ballot
question seeking to legalize medical aid in dying, state
lawmakers are once again set to delve into the emotional
testimony, ethical debates and logistical questions around
the issue.
Ahead of a Friday Public Health Committee hearing on bills
(H 2381, S 1384) that would allow terminally ill patients
who meet certain criteria to request and be prescribed a
lethal dose of medication to end their lives, supporters and
opponents each held video calls to make their case.
Backers, including some patients with incurable diseases who
want to be able to make decisions about the end of their
lives, present the policy as a way to relieve pain and
suffering when death is imminent and note that 10 other
states have adopted some version of the measure.
Those who oppose it warn of potential disparate impacts on
people with disabilities, people of color and people who
cannot afford life-extending treatments, and say that
palliative and home care should instead be made more
accessible.
This year, the COVID-19 pandemic is also part of the
discussion.
Kim Callinan of Compassion & Choices, a national group that
supports medical aid in dying legislation, said the pandemic
"has demonstrated the fragility of our lives and also the
limits that modern medicine has to relieve end-of-life
suffering."
Meanwhile, palliative care physician Dr. Laura Patrillo said
the latest push for the legislation comes at "literally the
worst possible time" to implement a policy that would
require thoughtful planning by the health care system that
is still reeling from the tolls of COVID-19.
"We're in the midst of a global pandemic and are stretched
thinner than we ever have been before," she said. "The
public perception of science and medicine is more fraught
and the relationship is more fraught than it ever has been.
We're losing staff and the people who are still here are
exhausted and burned out. The health care administration is
completely taxed."
Versions of the bills have been filed for years on Beacon
Hill. Last year, the Public Health Committee redrafted and
advanced the bills to the Health Care Financing Committee,
which did not take further action on them.
Callinan said this session's legislation has more than 80
cosponsors, including Rep. Ted Phillips, who wrote the first
draft of the bill in 2008 as a staffer to its longtime
legislative proponent, former Rep. Louis Kafka.
"This bill is not for everyone," Phillips said. "We have
worked very, very hard over the years to make it very clear
in the legislation that there is no ambiguity around who
this bill affects, that this decision cannot be made for
you. This decision would be yours alone."
Phillips said people interested in pursuing medical aid in
dying would need to "jump through hoops" -- including having
two doctors confirm they have a terminal illness and are
expected to die within six months, being deemed "of sound
mind," and making the request on two separate occasions,
with time between.
Opponents raise concerns that people will feel pressure to
make those requests.
On a call hosted by the Patients Rights Action Fund,
Stephanie Packer, a mother in California -- one of the
states that has legalized medical aid in dying -- said her
health insurance once informed her it was denying coverage
for her "life-extending treatment" for scleroderma, but she
would have been able to get medication to end her life for a
$1.20 copay.
"There's so much fear out there, and to hear that the
medications that could give me strength, that, that could
help me take care of my family, that could help me live long
enough to see my kids do amazing things, that those wouldn't
be provided, and I would have no way of accessing them, but
if I wanted to, I could pay a dollar and miss everything,
just because it's cheaper," she said.
Testimony in favor of H2381/S1384
(An Act relative to end of life options)
From Chip Ford
October 2, 2021
Member of
the Committee;
Most
members on this committee will likely remember Barbara
Anderson, “The Mother of Proposition 2½” and executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation for 35 years. She
was also a weekly columnist in The Salem News and
syndicated in other newspapers for a few decades.
As my
partner in CLT and “significant other” for two decades, I
cared for Barbara throughout her health challenge, from the
day of her initial diagnosis through a decade and a half of
various medical research trials and treatments, until
nothing worked for her any longer, never would. Her
leukemia prognosis was certain, inevitable and steadily
approaching. After she’d declined further futile treatment
I was constantly at her side caring for her when she was
bed-ridden at home for well over a month of her last days,
then at the hospice facility for her final few days until
she passed away.
Fiercely
independent, Barbara so much desired passing away on her own
terms, rather than enduring a long, drawn out deterioration
of mind and body. She was so frustrated, angry that the
death with dignity option was forbidden to her by law. She
even discussed taking the matter into her own hands but
feared legal repercussions after she succeeded for any who
may have been perceived as having assisted.
She
expressed her frustration publicly in her last two newspaper
columns, her final thoughts on this topic of death with
dignity.
In her last
column published while she was alive (“High
walls and hard lessons,” March 27, 2016) Barbara wrote:
“When I get
angry, it’s when my own rights are attacked. For instance,
as I get older, I want the right to choose assisted suicide
should I be in a ‘ready to die’ mode. But no, despite my
having left the Catholic Church 55 years ago, it still had
the power to fight a ballot question that would give me
personal autonomy over its religious doctrine. My own
emotions don’t usually run deep, my being a rational,
logical person and all, but I admit to hating the voters who
said no to the recent ‘death with dignity’ ballot question;
hope they live long enough to regret it. Or better still,
hope the bill supporting doctor-assisted suicide filed by my
state Rep. Lori Ehrlich passes this year.”
Eleven days
later Barbara left us. Her final column, written in advance
of the end looming over her, “Fighting
pirates with the Lost Boys” was published posthumously
on Apr. 11, 2016. Barbara wrote:
“Darn, I
knew this was going to happen someday.
“If you’re
reading this, I’m dead.
“‘Second
star to the right and on ‘til morning’ — now I never have to
grow up, much less grow old.
“I was in
the autumn of my life. I figure that the years until I
became a mother were spring, then there was summer til about
50, then autumn til death, which may be a lot like winter:
you hibernate until the next spring comes around and you get
another chance to enjoy the seasons. Unless autumn gets
extended because you don’t die when you really ought to, and
hang around deteriorating because the government thinks you
don’t have a right to die when you want.
“If,
despite my living will and various plans to control my
dying, I end up hanging around, then I curse the government
for the last time, though certainly not the only.” . . .
It is too
late for Barbara Anderson, but this presents yet another
opportunity for others in such straits. H2381/S1384 (“An
Act relative to end of life options”) is before this
committee. This legislation would provide a medically
doomed individual with a personal and compassionate exit
plan, by their own decision, their own choice. It would
remove government from everyone’s last and most personal
decision in life. H2381/S1384 deserves to be passed into
law, finally.
Perhaps you
could call it “Barbara’s Law” like so many other bills that
finally achieve passage by personalizing it with a
marketable name. I know she’d support its long overdue
passage, as she so adamantly did during her life.
Thank you
for your consideration and hopefully your vote to recommend
passage.
Chip Ford
The Salem News
Editorial Cartoon by Christopher Smigliano
Wednesday, April 13, 2016 |
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
|
