 |
Post Office Box 1147
▪
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
48 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Monday, January 24, 2022
"Out of The Frying
Pan, Into The Fire"
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News
Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
Analyses
from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (MADOR,
2016) and Tufts University’s Center for State Policy
Analysis (2022) dramatically underestimated the
number of households and businesses impacted by the
constitutionally-imposed tax hike that the
legislature is putting before voters in November
2022, according to a new study from Pioneer
Institute.
A question
scheduled to appear on the Massachusetts ballot next
November would amend the state constitution and
place a four-percent surtax on households and
thousands of Massachusetts businesses that in any
one year have income exceeding $1 million. In
studying the effect of the proposed tax, MADOR found
that 19,565 households and businesses would be
impacted in the single year the tax took effect. The
Tufts’ analysis estimates 26,000 would be affected
in 2023.
MADOR and
Tufts’ analyses focus on the impact in a single year
and are therefore premised on a fundamental
misunderstanding of the households and businesses
affected by the tax. Those affected by the tax are
primarily retirees and small businesses who have a
one-time taxable event, often the sale of an asset—a
home that will serve as a retirement nest-egg, a
business location or subsidiary, a patent, or
similar. The great majority are not “millionaires.”
A
new Pioneer Institute study finds that the
proposed tax would impact multiples of that amount
over a nine-year period, since the majority of
“millionaires” only earn $1 million once during that
time....
“Proponents like to call this a “millionaires tax”
but at best 1 in 5 of the people affected are
millionaires,” said Pioneer Executive Director Jim
Stergios. “The great majority are retirees and small
businesses, who aren’t millionaires hiding away in a
mythical castle with a moat around it. That’s what
proponents want you to believe – but the facts on
this are very clear.”
Pioneer
Institute
January 18, 2022
Study: Tax Up For A Vote In
November Would Ensnare
Over Three Times More Taxpayers Than Previously
Estimated
A handful
of business owners from various sectors and from
around Massachusetts came together Thursday to call
attention to how the proposed surtax on income over
$1 million would affect them and to push back
against the notion of the proposal is something that
would affect only the super-wealthy.
"The way
this tax is portrayed in the media, it's like all
these rich people with boats and million-dollar
houses and are just having gobs and gobs of money to
throw around. But small businesses aren't like
that," Ann Sullivan, who owns Metro Equipment
Corporation in Braintree, said. "This is our nest
egg. This is what I'm going to retire on and now I
may have to postpone my retirement because of this.
So for me, it's really it's affecting my day to day
my life, my choices, and also the choices of my
employees."
Sullivan
was one of six business owners convened by the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance and the Massachusetts
chapter of the National Federation of Independent
Business, two organizations that have worked to
rally opposition to a proposal that supporters call
the millionaire's tax....
The
proposal would not just affect individuals. Sen.
Patrick O'Connor estimated in 2019 that it could
also apply to about 15,000 Massachusetts small
businesses that file as pass-through entities for
tax purposes, and it would also be charged on
business owners who plan to sell their company to
support their own retirement.
"The
proposal to raise the income taxes is a slap in the
face to small business. First in that it's an extra
tax on profits for a subchapter S corporation as
most small businesses are and, second of all, if my
family ever decides to sell this boatyard having put
our life into it, we will be paying an extra 4
percent that will reduce our retirement income,"
Toby Burr, owner of Burr Brothers Boats in Marion,
said. "So I don't think people realize the extent to
which this tax is a penalty to small business."
Rep. Jim
O'Day, the House sponsor of the proposed
Constitutional amendment, last June rejected
opponents' claims that the surtax would unduly harm
small businesses in the Bay State by asserting that
"businesses earning over a million dollars, in my
estimation, are not small businesses."
NFIB State
Director Christopher Carlozzi said every business on
the call Thursday morning would be categorized as a
small business and said O'Day's comment "shows a
lack of understanding as to how small businesses
operate in this state."
"They're
not walking away with a million dollars in their
pocket every year. It's the way their business is
organized for tax purposes and, as we've said,
that's money that's reinvested into job creation and
really reinvesting into Massachusetts," he said. "So
it's very short-sighted to make a comment like that
when I'm sure the representative has a lot of
business owners in his district that would be very
much impacted by this."
State
House News Service
Thursday, January 20, 2021
Small Biz Owners Fear Income
Surtax Will Dent Nest Eggs
Boatyard Owner Calls Tax "Slap In The Face"
A new
chapter in the race for governor began Thursday with
Attorney General Maura Healey launching her campaign
under dark, wintry skies, entering a race in which
she will instantly be considered the front-runner to
succeed Gov. Charlie Baker and win back the corner
office for Democrats.
Healey,
50, catapulted onto the state's political scene in
2014 when, as an underdog, she won her first
campaign for political office to become the state's
top law enforcement officer. Since then, she has
taken on President Donald Trump in court and
challenged major corporations like Exxon Mobil and
Purdue Pharma.
Now she
must prove to voters that she has the skills and
vision for a broader role overseeing all of state
government as Massachusetts looks to rebound from a
deadly pandemic that has altered everything from
commerce to education....
I
understand people are tired right now. I understand
that people wonder if we're ever going to get
through this and out of this. And I'm just here to
say we are, and we will and we will move forward in
ways that are bigger and better than ever imagined,"
Healey told reporters....
Healey
said she would leave it to others to decide if she
was sufficiently progressive, or had the vision to
lead Massachusetts forward.
"I guess
I'd say look at my record. I think that's what
people have to do. They have to hear my words. They
have to look at what I've done. They have to look at
what I say that I would do. And I'll let that, in
some ways, speak for itself," Healey said....
On the
Republican side of the race, former state Rep. Geoff
Diehl is the only candidate running. Diehl linked
the timing of Healey's campaign launch to Thursday's
one-year anniversary of President Joe Biden taking
office, blaming Democrats in Washington for
inflation, business closures and the struggles of
schools to educate all children.
"Maura
Healey's announcement signals the start of a race by
Democratic candidates to double down on these failed
policies right here in Massachusetts," Diehl said.
"Whomever emerges from the trio of radical
progressives, the choice will be clear and easy for
Massachusetts: live under government control of
every aspect of your life, or live in a state where
you're free to choose a school, a career and a life
of self-direction and unlimited opportunity."
State
House News Service
Thursday, January 20, 2021
Healey Takes Record As
AG Into Guv’s Race
Boston Dem Wants State On "Bigger and Better" Path
Forward
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who
made herself a nationally known figure with lawsuits
against the Trump administration and big
corporations, formally launched her campaign for
governor on Thursday, immediately becoming the
race’s presumptive frontrunner.
In her
first public remarks as a gubernatorial candidate,
the second-term Democrat pitched herself as an
experienced public servant prepared to grow her
purview from legal issues to kitchen-table ones, and
get the Massachusetts economy “back on track.” And
though she has built a reputation as a progressive,
Healey resisted such labels on Thursday, instead
striking a moderate tone that avoided calls for
sweeping change....
Analysts
say Healey’s $3.7 million war chest and higher name
recognition make her the candidate to beat. With the
state’s top two Republicans, Governor Charlie Baker
and Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito, out of this
year’s race, Democrats are bullish on their chances
to win back the office — and many believe Healey has
a good shot at doing it....
In
Healey’s first hours as a candidate, she sidestepped
a reporter’s question about whether she considers
herself an “uber-progressive” Democrat, saying she’d
leave it to “others to characterize my record.” ...
Her early
focus stands in stark contrast to message of her
progressive opponents, who have called for
“transformation” since entering the race last
year....
Healey’s
campaign began to build rapid momentum in the hours
after her pre-dawn announcement, raising $100,000 in
the first six hours alone, an aide said. And she
earned early endorsements from Teamsters Local 25,
the Democratic Attorneys General Association, and
Barbara Lee, who heads a political operation and
research foundation that advocate for women’s
equality in American politics....
[Geoff]
Diehl, a conservative Republican who is running,
called Healey and the other two major candidates a
“trio of radical progressives” and said the choice
for Massachusetts voters should be clear: “Live
under government control of every aspect of your
life, or live in a state where you’re free to choose
a school, a career and a life of self-direction and
unlimited opportunity.”
The
Boston Globe
Thursday, January 20, 2022
Maura Healey launches
campaign for governor,
promising to ‘continue with what’s working and fix
what’s not’
Even
before COVID-19 triggered a tsunami of layoffs, it
was hard to overstate just how frustrated businesses
were with the state’s unemployment insurance system.
Massachusetts has among the most generous jobless
benefits in the country, and it maintains a low bar
for eligibility. Businesses, which fund unemployment
payouts through taxes, see the state as an
extravagant spender — of their money. They resent
that neither the Legislature nor the Baker
administration has made overhauling the broken
system a priority.
“Employers
are frankly pretty fed up with special groups which
simply point at the business community and the
funding side to seek solvency and higher benefits,”
said Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers
Association of Massachusetts.
With that
as context, consider what I reported on Monday: The
Department of Unemployment Assistance paid at least
$2.7 billion over the past two years to hundreds of
thousands of people who got more money than they
were due or who weren’t eligible for compensation
when they lost their jobs. The overpayments I
focused on were not caused by criminal fraud but
human error — by DUA staff or benefit-seekers....
“It’s bad
for people and bad for businesses,” said state
Senator Patricia Jehlen, a Democrat from Somerville
who is co-chair of the Joint Committee on Labor and
Workforce Development.
And third,
penalizing unemployment recipients for the DUA’s
errors just doesn’t seem fair. It often took months
for the department to notify these folks, many of
whom were relying on jobless benefits to cover
necessities like food, housing, and utilities.
Jehlen
agrees, but she’s hesitant to endorse a waiver or
other ways to ease the burden on people until she
has more information.
That isn’t
easy when dealing with the sclerotic DUA, which is
notorious for withholding information.
“We need
an accounting,” Jehlen said.
True that,
senator....
No wonder employers are steaming.
The
Boston Globe
Wednesday, January 19, 2022
Mass. businesses back
financial relief on jobless claims clawbacks
“We’re
listening.”
That’s
essentially the message the Baker administration
sought to deliver Thursday as it belatedly provided
details on efforts to claw back billions of dollars
in unemployment payments it later determined
shouldn’t have been paid.
In a bid
to soften its image as it duns hundreds of thousands
of people, the Department of Unemployment Assistance
disclosed for the first time that it has dropped
nearly $1.2 billion in repayment demands issued
since the pandemic triggered a tsunami of layoffs in
March 2020. It backed off after claimants provided
additional proof they were truly eligible for
benefits. The DUA said it has also approved $600
million financial hardship or equity waivers.
But even
after those moves, the department has $2.6 billion
in “apparent outstanding overpayments,” the first
time it has said how much money is currently in
dispute. About 85 percent of that amount came from
federal pandemic programs, the rest from the
state....
Two days
later I followed up with an online column asking
whether some or all of the overpayments could be
repaid with a mix of federal pandemic relief aid and
state budget surplus dollars. That was an idea
suggested to me, independently, by the leaders of
three big employer groups in the state.
Until this
point, the DUA had declined to provide any data on
overpayments beyond what Rosalin Acosta, secretary
of the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce
Development, told a legislative hearing last month.
Acosta, who oversees DUA, said there were 383,000
claimants with open cases but didn’t provide a total
dollar amount the state was trying to reclaim.
Luckily,
the DUA sends a lot of data to Washington, which the
Labor Department puts into various reports. An
employment attorney at Community Legal Aid, which
provides free legal help in Western Massachusetts,
analyzed those reports. The bottom line: from March
2020 to September 2021, DUA made $2.7 billion in
overpayments — excluding any reversals or waivers —
with $1.1 billion, or 42 percent, attributed to the
state unemployment program, which is funded by
employers through taxes....
My
colleague Shirley Leung talked with state Auditor
Suzanne Bump, who said she doesn’t think the state
should forgive the debt and move on.
”Program
integrity is essential for government trust,” she
said. “Overall the program of clawing back is
appropriate and required under the law.”
But the
situation is a mess.
The
Boston Globe
Thursday, January 20, 2022
State needs to slow down
on clawing back unemployment overpayments
The names
stretch out behind her, well-known in state
political lore, like ghosts of elections past:
Quinn, Harshbarger, Reilly, Coakley. They were all
incumbent attorneys general who endeavored to become
governor, only to fall short.
But Maura
Healey's not thinking about the past....
It's been
written many times over the past few days that
Healey enters the race as the prohibitive favorite.
But just ask Tom Reilly how quickly that title can
be snatched away. Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz and Danielle
Allen both showed by their welcoming of Healey that
neither are prepared to lay down, passively tagging
the prosecutor with the establishment label they are
looking to rip off of state government.
For now,
Healey is riding the wave. Her campaign pulled in
$207,376 in donations in the 24 hours after her
launch video went live, a one-day sum equal to half
of the personal record she set in December when she
collected over $400,000 from donors eager to give
her encouragement. Turns out running can be as
lucrative as the tease.
Gov.
Charlie Baker flew above the political fray this
week, sticking with the focused-on-the-work message
that he chose last month when he decided to watch
campaign 2022 unfold from the sidelines....
Sen. Lydia
Edwards, an East Boston Democrat, took her oath of
office Thursday to join the Senate as "lucky number
13," raising the number of women in the body to a
baker's dozen.
While the
Senate was restored to full strength, the exodus
from the House picked up steam, with news about five
women who are moving on. Claire Cronin gave her
farewell speech to colleagues after being sworn in
as President Joe Biden's ambassador to Ireland,
while Rep. Lori Ehrlich got tapped to lead the New
England office of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
Rep. Maria
Robinson had her confirmation hearing to join the
U.S. Department of Energy scheduled before a Senate
committee for Feb. 3, Rep. Sheila Harrington was
tapped by Baker for the clerk magistrate job in
Gardner District Court, and Methuen Rep. Linda Dean
Campbell announced her plans to retire at the end of
the term to spend more time with her family.
House
Speaker Ron Mariano must now decide whether it makes
sense to schedule special elections to replace some
of these departing members or leave them empty until
next year. If history is any guide, resignations
that occur early in an election year often lead to
extended vacancies....
Healey's
leap into the governor's race shifted the focus of
the will-they-won't-they guessing game to the office
she's giving up, and the Democrats are swarming.
Shannon
Liss-Riordan and Quentin Palfrey, past contenders
for statewide office, took steps to prepare for
campaigns even before Healey made her intentions
clear. And Andrea Campbell, the former Boston city
councilor fresh off a 2021 run for mayor, and New
Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell are also said to be
mulling a bid to be the state's top law enforcement
officer.
Middlesex
DA Marian Ryan has not ruled out a run for attorney
general and why would she? The three AGs before
Healey -- Harshbarger, Reilly and Coakley -- each
made the jump from Middlesex DA to attorney general.
State
House News Service
Friday, January 21, 2022
Weekly Roundup - Musical Chairs
Gov.
Charlie Baker in July signed a $47.6 billion annual
state budget, put his name on a $4 billion COVID-19
relief bill in December, and on Wednesday launches
the fiscal 2023 budget debate. It's the governor's
final budget proposal and the first one he will
issue under his new lame duck status.
Baker on
Tuesday night will deliver his last State of the
State address, remarks that will also be consumed
through the lens of the evolving race among
candidates to succeed him. A new governor will be in
place at this time next year, preparing their first
budget and inheriting management of the spending
bill Beacon Hill is about to assemble.
With state
tax collections consistently smashing projections,
Baker's team and Democratic legislative leaders have
agreed on a projected 2.7 percent increase in tax
receipts for the coming fiscal year, but that
increase is based on a fiscal 2022 estimate that the
administration this month ratcheted upwards by $1.5
billion. Compared to the original estimate for the
current fiscal year ($30.12 billion), the forecast
for fiscal 2023 ($36.915 billion) would represent
growth of more than 22 percent, so there's no
revenue crunch at the moment and the extent of state
revenue-sharing with local government could emerge
as a topic of debate in the coming months.
State
House News Service
Friday, January 21, 2022
Advances - Week of Jan. 23, 2022
REVENUE
COMMITTEE: Joint Committee on Revenue convenes a
virtual hearing, its fourth this month, to consider
26 bills dealing with veterans issues and another 26
miscellaneous bills. Many of the proposals seek to
offer tax credits or exemptions to veterans,
including multiple proposals to relieve the burden
they face from property taxes.
The
miscellaneous portion of the agenda features a Sen.
Jason Lewis bill (S 1910) to launch a pilot program
offering a universal basic income to at least 1,500
Bay Staters and a pair of housing-related bills from
Rep. Mike Connolly that would allow municipalities
to impose an excise tax on vacant units in
residential buildings (H 2852) and tax large
businesses to fund homelessness prevention (H 2855).
(Tuesday, 10 a.m.,
More information)
State
House News Service
Advances - Week of Jan. 23, 2022
Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2022
SECTION 1.
The General Laws, as appearing in the 2018 Official
Edition, are hereby amended by inserting after
chapter 29D the following new chapter:-
CHAPTER
29E. LIMITATION ON THE GROWTH OF STATE
EXPENDITURES...
Section 3.
Beginning on or after January 1, 2022, the growth
rate in state expenditures for every ensuing fiscal
year shall equal inflation plus the state population
change as so reported 12 months before.
Section 4.
Following the execution of the provisions of section
3, should state tax revenues exceed state
expenditures, the amount in excess shall be
transferred to the temporary holding fund
established by the comptroller. Any balance in the
temporary holding fund greater than zero at the end
of the fiscal year shall be refunded to the
taxpayers of the Commonwealth, as prescribed by
rules and regulations determined by the commissioner
of revenue; provided, the provisions of section 5C
of chapter 29 shall not occur until after the
provisions of this section are executed.
Section 5.
Following the execution of the provisions of section
3, should state expenditures exceed state tax
revenues, the amount in excess shall be reduced to
match state tax revenues.
Section 6.
The Supreme Judicial Court or Superior Court may,
upon the petition of not less than twenty-four
taxable inhabitants of the Commonwealth, enforce the
provisions of this chapter. If successful, said
taxable inhabitants shall be entitled to recover
reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs from the
Commonwealth incurred in maintaining such suit.
Bill H.2958
An Act relative to the taxpayers’ bill of rights
By Mr. Jones of North Reading, a petition
(accompanied by bill, House, No. 2958)
of Bradley H. Jones, Jr., and others relative to
limitations on expenditures and revenues.
REVENUE
COMMITTEE: Revenue Committee holds a hearing on 58
bills dealing with property taxes, including
exemptions and abatements, and miscellaneous
matters.
Home rule
petitions to authorize real estate transfer taxes in
Nantucket (H 4201), Cambridge (H 4282) and Arlington
(H 4295) are on the agenda, as are several bills
involving payments in lieu of taxes. A pair of Rep.
Williams bills (H 3094, H 3095) speak specifically
to PILOT payments by casinos. A Rep. DeCoste bill (H
4174) would provide for real estate tax abatements
in cases of public health emergencies or terrorism.
A Sen. Lovely bill (S 1919), filed in February 2021
during the COVID-19 state of emergency, proposes
abatements for the last set of businesses that were
allowed to reopen after the pandemic shutdowns and a
Sen. Moran bill (S 2553) filed last September
proposes tax relief for child care providers who
received federal grants. (Friday, 10 a.m.,
Agenda and Info)
State
House News Service
Advances - Week of Jan. 23, 2022
Friday, Jan. 28, 2022
Chapter 59
of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting
after section 5N the following 2 sections:-
Section
5O. In any city or town that accepts this section,
the board of selectmen of a town, or in a
municipality having a town council form of
government, the town council or the mayor, with the
approval of the city council in a city, may
establish a bifurcated or progressive tax rate on
real property.
Bill S.1836
An Act relative to a bifurcated property tax
By Mr. Cyr, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate,
No. 1836) of Julian Cyr
and Adam J. Scanlon for legislation relative to a
bifurcated property tax.
Citing
housing affordability hurdles that are compounding
workforce challenges, one of the state's largest
health care employers is getting behind a proposal
to allow cities and towns in Massachusetts to put a
new fee on housing transactions.
Mass
General Brigham submitted testimony Wednesday to the
Joint Committee on Housing in support of bills that
would enable municipalities to impose of a fee of
between 0.5 and 2 percent of the price of certain
housing transactions in order to generate revenue to
preserve affordable housing and fund new homes
construction. The fee rate, and any exemptions,
would be set locally, giving communities flexibility
in crafting parameters.
As
proposed, the bills (H 1377 and S 868) call for the
new fees to be applied only on transactions
featuring prices that are above the statewide or
county median single-family home price.
If
approved, the transfer fee could be in addition to
property tax surcharges imposed in nearly 200
communities that have adopted the Community
Preservation Act (CPA), a law approved in 2000 that
permits a local charge of up to 3 percent to pay for
open space protection, historic preservation,
affordable housing and outdoor recreation. More than
8,700 affordable housing units have been created and
14,700 more units supported with CPA funds....
"Health
and housing are inextricably linked, and research
has demonstrated the connection between housing
stability and health outcomes. The lack of
affordable housing, and other social determinants of
health, plague many neighborhoods disproportionately
- particularly communities of color - leading to
alarming health disparities," Taveras wrote in
testimony to the committee, a copy of which was
obtained by the News Service....
Supporters
of the bill say a new fee is justified because
runaway housing costs are increasingly hampering the
ability of employers to sustain workforces across
industries, including the restaurant, retail,
education and public safety sectors.
Real
estate industry officials over the years have
successfully bottled up proposals to impose new fees
on property transactions, arguing against the idea
of making housing costs higher in order to address a
problem that is a statewide issue and the focus of
numerous, longstanding government-sponsored housing
programs.
State
House News Service
Thursday, January 20, 2022
Mass General Brigham Backs
Fee To Address Housing Crunch
Transfer Tax Bills Haven't Caught On At State House |
|
Any CLT farmers/farm-owners
reading this and willing to participate in a Zoom remote conference about how
this proposed graduated income tax will affect you?
We're looking for a few
for an upcoming news conference (like the one last Thursday with
small business-owners) to highlight the extent of damage
this proposed constitutional amendment will impose on family
farmers.
Toby Burr, owner of Burr Brothers Boats in Marion
and a longtime CLT member, at Thursday's Zoom news conference called it "a slap in the face" when he
spoke for boatyard owners and
other small, family-owned businesses.
It was a
hard-working Marblehead boatyard owner who encouraged Barbara
Anderson to seek a job with CLT many decades ago. Her husband at the time,
Ralph explained to her in frustration that a graduated income tax
meant "the harder you work the more the government takes."
Barbara was working then as a part-time lifeguard at the Marblehead
YMCA. He suggested she look into Citizens for Limited
Taxation, which had just been launched to oppose the fourth
graduated income tax assault. Maybe they'd give her a fulltime job to
help stop it. Barbara was intrigued, was soon hired as CLT's first secretary
— and for the next forty years she went on to make
Massachusetts history!
Pioneer Institute released
a report last Tuesday ("Study: Tax Up For A Vote In
November Would Ensnare
Over Three Times More Taxpayers Than Previously
Estimated") that revealed "the proposed tax
would impact multiples of that amount over a nine-year period, since
the majority of 'millionaires' only earn $1 million once during that
time." In its news release accompanying the report Pioneer
Institute noted:
“Proponents like to call this a “millionaires tax”
but at best 1 in 5 of the people affected are
millionaires,” said Pioneer Executive Director Jim
Stergios. “The great majority are retirees and small
businesses, who aren’t millionaires hiding away in a
mythical castle with a moat around it. That’s what
proponents want you to believe – but the facts on
this are very clear.”
On
Thursday the State
House News Service reported ("Small Biz Owners Fear Income
Surtax Will Dent Nest Eggs;
Boatyard Owner Calls Tax "Slap In The Face"):
A handful
of business owners from various sectors and from
around Massachusetts came together Thursday to call
attention to how the proposed surtax on income over
$1 million would affect them and to push back
against the notion of the proposal is something that
would affect only the super-wealthy.
"The way
this tax is portrayed in the media, it's like all
these rich people with boats and million-dollar
houses and are just having gobs and gobs of money to
throw around. But small businesses aren't like
that," Ann Sullivan, who owns Metro Equipment
Corporation in Braintree, said. "This is our nest
egg. This is what I'm going to retire on and now I
may have to postpone my retirement because of this.
So for me, it's really it's affecting my day to day
my life, my choices, and also the choices of my
employees."
Sullivan
was one of six business owners convened by the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance and the Massachusetts
chapter of the National Federation of Independent
Business, two organizations that have worked to
rally opposition to a proposal that supporters call
the millionaire's tax....
The
proposal would not just affect individuals. Sen.
Patrick O'Connor estimated in 2019 that it could
also apply to about 15,000 Massachusetts small
businesses that file as pass-through entities for
tax purposes, and it would also be charged on
business owners who plan to sell their company to
support their own retirement.
"The
proposal to raise the income taxes is a slap in the
face to small business. First in that it's an extra
tax on profits for a subchapter S corporation as
most small businesses are and, second of all, if my
family ever decides to sell this boatyard having put
our life into it, we will be paying an extra 4
percent that will reduce our retirement income,"
Toby Burr, owner of Burr Brothers Boats in Marion,
said. "So I don't think people realize the extent to
which this tax is a penalty to small business."
Rep. Jim
O'Day, the House sponsor of the proposed
Constitutional amendment, last June rejected
opponents' claims that the surtax would unduly harm
small businesses in the Bay State by asserting that
"businesses earning over a million dollars, in my
estimation, are not small businesses."
NFIB State
Director Christopher Carlozzi said every business on
the call Thursday morning would be categorized as a
small business and said O'Day's comment "shows a
lack of understanding as to how small businesses
operate in this state."
"They're
not walking away with a million dollars in their
pocket every year. It's the way their business is
organized for tax purposes and, as we've said,
that's money that's reinvested into job creation and
really reinvesting into Massachusetts," he said. "So
it's very short-sighted to make a comment like that
when I'm sure the representative has a lot of
business owners in his district that would be very
much impacted by this."
In
my
commentary for the CLT Update of April 5, 2021 ("'Millionaires'
Grad Tax Would Hit Middle-Class Retirees") I wrote:
On the political front
it's looking more like the Democrats' candidate to run against the
Baker/Polito administration -- whether that will be Charlie or Karyn
-- will likely be the ambitious Attorney General Maura Healey.
Like the
Hamlet-of-Beacon-Hill at last
Democrat attorney general Maura Healey has ceased
the suspense game and finally taking the inevitable plunge,
announcing she is now officially a candidate for governor.
In her announcement on Thursday she promised "we will move
forward in ways that are bigger and better than ever imagined."
Isn't that precious and
inspiring — moving forward in ways that
are bigger and better. Just what productive Massachusetts
taxpayers need: State government that is even bigger
doing things "better than ever imagined" by god!
The Boston Globe reported: "[Geoff]
Diehl, a conservative Republican who is running,
called Healey and the other two major candidates a
'trio of radical progressives' and said the choice
for Massachusetts voters should be clear: 'Live
under government control of every aspect of your
life, or live in a state where you’re free to choose
a school, a career and a life of self-direction and
unlimited opportunity.'”
The battle over who will
become the next Bay State governor in my view at the moment comes
down to Geoff Diehl, who has been endorsed by Donald Trump, and
Maura Healey, who as attorney general has sued the former-Trump
administration in federal courts at least 43 times.
Considering that Massachusetts voters in 2016 voted 60%-32.8% for
Hillary Clinton over Trump, and in 2020 voted 65.6%-32.1% for Biden
over Trump, unfortunately I sadly predict that Healey will be the
next governor of Massachusetts.
Charlie Baker will be back
in the private sector and Massachusetts residents will find
themselves out of the frying pan, into the fire. Though he
governed as a Democrat (likely a prerequisite to be elected in
Massachusetts) he wasn't a wild-eyed radical progressive like what's
coming — unless Diehl pulls off some
kind of miracle for the ages, and I'm so rooting for that.
Maybe that Red Wave expected to sweep the country in November will
splash the Bay State a bit. On the Friday episode of The
Mark Levin Show he spent over ten minutes (starting at 3:55
minutes in) exposing ongoing new "affordable housing" schemes in
Massachusetts: "Governor Charlie Baker, utter disaster," Levin
declared, "Now this is a Republican?" (at 7:00 minutes in).
[Click on the graphic
below to listen]
In its
Advances for this week ahead the
State
House News Service on Friday reported:
Gov.
Charlie Baker in July signed a $47.6 billion annual
state budget, put his name on a $4 billion COVID-19
relief bill in December, and on Wednesday launches
the fiscal 2023 budget debate. It's the governor's
final budget proposal and the first one he will
issue under his new lame duck status....
With state
tax collections consistently smashing projections,
Baker's team and Democratic legislative leaders have
agreed on a projected 2.7 percent increase in tax
receipts for the coming fiscal year, but that
increase is based on a fiscal 2022 estimate that the
administration this month ratcheted upwards by $1.5
billion. Compared to the original estimate for the
current fiscal year ($30.12 billion), the forecast
for fiscal 2023 ($36.915 billion) would represent
growth of more than 22 percent, so there's no
revenue crunch at the moment and the extent of state
revenue-sharing with local government could emerge
as a topic of debate in the coming months.
With revenue still
flooding the state treasury like shot out of a high-pressure fire
hose why are legislators still looking to suck in ever more from
taxpayers? We know the answer only too well. It's what
they do, it's all they know how to do.
In its
Advances for this week (Week of Jan. 23, 2022) the State
House News Service reported these 84 bills
tax-related bills coming before the Joint Committee on Revenue this
week:
Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2022
REVENUE
COMMITTEE: Joint Committee on Revenue convenes a
virtual hearing, its fourth this month, to consider
26 bills dealing with veterans issues and another 26
miscellaneous bills. Many of the proposals seek to
offer tax credits or exemptions to veterans,
including multiple proposals to relieve the burden
they face from property taxes.
The
miscellaneous portion of the agenda features a Sen.
Jason Lewis bill (S 1910) to launch a pilot program
offering a universal basic income to at least 1,500
Bay Staters and a pair of housing-related bills from
Rep. Mike Connolly that would allow municipalities
to impose an excise tax on vacant units in
residential buildings (H 2852) and tax large
businesses to fund homelessness prevention (H 2855).
(Tuesday, 10 a.m.,
More information)
Friday, Jan. 28, 2022
REVENUE
COMMITTEE: Revenue Committee holds a hearing on 58
bills dealing with property taxes, including
exemptions and abatements, and miscellaneous
matters.
Home rule
petitions to authorize real estate transfer taxes in
Nantucket (H 4201), Cambridge (H 4282) and Arlington
(H 4295) are on the agenda, as are several bills
involving payments in lieu of taxes. A pair of Rep.
Williams bills (H 3094, H 3095) speak specifically
to PILOT payments by casinos. A Rep. DeCoste bill (H
4174) would provide for real estate tax abatements
in cases of public health emergencies or terrorism.
A Sen. Lovely bill (S 1919), filed in February 2021
during the COVID-19 state of emergency, proposes
abatements for the last set of businesses that were
allowed to reopen after the pandemic shutdowns and a
Sen. Moran bill (S 2553) filed last September
proposes tax relief for child care providers who
received federal grants. (Friday, 10 a.m.,
Agenda and Info)
Two that jumped out and
caught my attention:
Bill H.2958
An Act relative to the taxpayers’ bill of rights
By Mr. Jones of North Reading, a petition
(accompanied by bill, House, No. 2958)
of Bradley H. Jones, Jr., and others relative to
limitations on expenditures and revenues.
Bill S.1836
An Act relative to a bifurcated property tax
By Mr. Cyr, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate,
No. 1836) of Julian Cyr
and Adam J. Scanlon for legislation relative to a
bifurcated property tax.
This being the
Massachusetts Legislature, which do you think in all likelihood will
get the most attention and support?
The
Boston Globe reported last Wednesday ("Mass. businesses back
financial relief on jobless claims clawbacks"):
Even
before COVID-19 triggered a tsunami of layoffs, it
was hard to overstate just how frustrated businesses
were with the state’s unemployment insurance system.
Massachusetts has among the most generous jobless
benefits in the country, and it maintains a low bar
for eligibility. Businesses, which fund unemployment
payouts through taxes, see the state as an
extravagant spender — of their money. They resent
that neither the Legislature nor the Baker
administration has made overhauling the broken
system a priority.
“Employers
are frankly pretty fed up with special groups which
simply point at the business community and the
funding side to seek solvency and higher benefits,”
said Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers
Association of Massachusetts.
With that
as context, consider what I reported on Monday: The
Department of Unemployment Assistance paid at least
$2.7 billion over the past two years to hundreds of
thousands of people who got more money than they
were due or who weren’t eligible for compensation
when they lost their jobs. The overpayments I
focused on were not caused by criminal fraud but
human error — by DUA staff or benefit-seekers....
No wonder employers are steaming.
Then on Thursday the Globe
followed up with ("State needs to slow down
on clawing back unemployment overpayments"):
“We’re
listening.”
That’s
essentially the message the Baker administration
sought to deliver Thursday as it belatedly provided
details on efforts to claw back billions of dollars
in unemployment payments it later determined
shouldn’t have been paid.
In a bid
to soften its image as it duns hundreds of thousands
of people, the Department of Unemployment Assistance
disclosed for the first time that it has dropped
nearly $1.2 billion in repayment demands issued
since the pandemic triggered a tsunami of layoffs in
March 2020. It backed off after claimants provided
additional proof they were truly eligible for
benefits. The DUA said it has also approved $600
million financial hardship or equity waivers.
But even
after those moves, the department has $2.6 billion
in “apparent outstanding overpayments,” the first
time it has said how much money is currently in
dispute. About 85 percent of that amount came from
federal pandemic programs, the rest from the
state....
Two days
later I followed up with an online column asking
whether some or all of the overpayments could be
repaid with a mix of federal pandemic relief aid and
state budget surplus dollars. That was an idea
suggested to me, independently, by the leaders of
three big employer groups in the state.
Until this
point, the DUA had declined to provide any data on
overpayments beyond what Rosalin Acosta, secretary
of the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce
Development, told a legislative hearing last month.
Acosta, who oversees DUA, said there were 383,000
claimants with open cases but didn’t provide a total
dollar amount the state was trying to reclaim.
Luckily,
the DUA sends a lot of data to Washington, which the
Labor Department puts into various reports. An
employment attorney at Community Legal Aid, which
provides free legal help in Western Massachusetts,
analyzed those reports. The bottom line: from March
2020 to September 2021, DUA made $2.7 billion in
overpayments — excluding any reversals or waivers —
with $1.1 billion, or 42 percent, attributed to the
state unemployment program, which is funded by
employers through taxes....
Nonetheless, the state
somehow holds employers responsible for this state fiasco for which
employers had nothing to do, and the state wants employers to pay
for much of its own malfeasance. Remember, these employers and
businesses were forced by the state to shut down and end their
employment, lay off their workers —
even go out-of-business entirely and permanently. Meanwhile,
the state has collected billions in federal "pandemic relief" Beacon
Hill chooses to spend elsewhere on other things.
And if that's not bad
enough, now comes giant Mass General Brigham supporting an effort to
add a new fee to home sales. The
State
House News Service reported on Thursday ("Mass General Brigham Backs
Fee To Address Housing Crunch"):
Citing
housing affordability hurdles that are compounding
workforce challenges, one of the state's largest
health care employers is getting behind a proposal
to allow cities and towns in Massachusetts to put a
new fee on housing transactions.
Mass
General Brigham submitted testimony Wednesday to the
Joint Committee on Housing in support of bills that
would enable municipalities to impose of a fee of
between 0.5 and 2 percent of the price of certain
housing transactions in order to generate revenue to
preserve affordable housing and fund new homes
construction. The fee rate, and any exemptions,
would be set locally, giving communities flexibility
in crafting parameters....
If
approved, the transfer fee could be in addition to
property tax surcharges imposed in nearly 200
communities that have adopted the Community
Preservation Act (CPA), a law approved in 2000 that
permits a local charge of up to 3 percent to pay for
open space protection, historic preservation,
affordable housing and outdoor recreation. More than
8,700 affordable housing units have been created and
14,700 more units supported with CPA funds....
"Health
and housing are inextricably linked, and research
has demonstrated the connection between housing
stability and health outcomes. The lack of
affordable housing, and other social determinants of
health, plague many neighborhoods disproportionately
- particularly communities of color - leading to
alarming health disparities," Taveras wrote in
testimony to the committee, a copy of which was
obtained by the News Service....
Real
estate industry officials over the years have
successfully bottled up proposals to impose new fees
on property transactions, arguing against the idea
of making housing costs higher in order to address a
problem that is a statewide issue and the focus of
numerous, longstanding government-sponsored housing
programs.
Like vampires these bad
ideas never die, await the darkness of night to resurrect themselves
and come to suck our blood. This one has been languishing in
its crypt since at least 2019 — when
CLT last testified against it:
Testimony for the Joint
Committee on Revenue
September 10, 2019
CLT Supports Estate Tax Revision;
Opposes “Bifurcated” Property Tax
. . . Citizens for Limited
Taxation opposes one dangerous bill before the committee today,
sponsored by Sen. Julian Cyr and Rep. Dylan Fernandes.
S.1634 ("An Act relative to a bifurcated property tax")
would radically transform the municipal property tax into a
progressive tax with different tax rates dependent on some
criteria not defined in their bill. CLT strongly opposes
the inevitable rancor and division this would engender while
pitting neighbor against neighbor over different property tax
rates. Citizens for Limited Taxation will always oppose
anything that erodes or distorts the intent of our Proposition
2½, as S.1634 would surely do.
It is also
noteworthy that should S.1634 ever pass it will be challenged in
court as presumably violating the Massachusetts Constitution,
Article XLIV: ". . . Such tax may be at different rates upon
income derived from different classes of property, but shall be
levied at a uniform rate throughout the commonwealth upon
incomes derived from the same class of property. . . ."
We hope S.1634
will be rejected by this committee.
If the Mass General
Brigham hospital system feels so strongly then the massive
"non-profit" hospital conglomerate has the means to begin
alleviating the problem immediately. How much will MGB pony up
to spare a heavier burden on taxpayers and to ameliorate their
anxieties and depression — in the name of
those taxpayers' health?
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
Pioneer
Institute
January 18, 2022
Study: Tax Up For A Vote In November Would Ensnare
Over Three Times More Taxpayers Than Previously Estimated
Surtax mainly
impacts households and businesses whose income exceeds $1
million due to one-time business events, sales of long-held
property and retirement
Analyses from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (MADOR,
2016) and Tufts University’s Center for State Policy
Analysis (2022) dramatically underestimated the number of
households and businesses impacted by the
constitutionally-imposed tax hike that the legislature is
putting before voters in November 2022, according to
a new
study from Pioneer Institute.
A question scheduled to appear on the Massachusetts ballot
next November would amend the state constitution and place a
four-percent surtax on households and thousands of
Massachusetts businesses that in any one year have income
exceeding $1 million. In studying the effect of the proposed
tax, MADOR found that 19,565 households and businesses would
be impacted in the single year the tax took effect. The
Tufts’ analysis estimates 26,000 would be affected in 2023.
MADOR and Tufts’ analyses focus on the impact in a single
year and are therefore premised on a fundamental
misunderstanding of the households and businesses affected
by the tax. Those affected by the tax are primarily retirees
and small businesses who have a one-time taxable event,
often the sale of an asset—a home that will serve as a
retirement nest-egg, a business location or subsidiary, a
patent, or similar. The great majority are not
“millionaires.”
A new Pioneer Institute study finds that the proposed tax
would impact multiples of that amount over a nine-year
period, since the majority of “millionaires” only earn $1
million once during that time.
“More than three times the number of unique individual
Massachusetts taxpayers—mainly retirees and individuals who
have a business pass-through—would be affected by the
proposed surtax over nine years than found in these
estimates,” said Greg Sullivan, author of “The Great
Understatement: Far more taxpayers and businesses than
previously estimated will be affected by the proposed
surtax.” “The longitudinal data makes clear that a one-year
analysis gives short shrift to the number of businesses and
households who will be affected by this tax proposal.”
According to a 2010 Tax Foundation report, more than half
the U.S. taxpayers who reported gross annual incomes of $1
million or more in any year from 1999 to 2007 did so only
once during the period. Only 5.6 percent reported
million-dollar incomes in each of the nine years and less
than 20 percent earned $1 million or more in four or more of
the years.
If the same persistence rate is applied to Massachusetts,
the surtax would affect 64,843 state taxpayers – not 19,565
– over nine years. Of those, 32,470 would earn over $1
million just once in nine years. Only 3,650 would be
expected to have income over $1 million each year during
that period.
Because the tax proposal affects capital gains, it could
sweep into thousands of retirees selling longtime homes and
long-held assets.
The surtax would also impact Massachusetts businesses, since
“pass throughs” such as sole proprietorships, partnerships,
limited liability and S corporations are taxed via
individual returns. Based on 2018 IRS data, there are over
13,000 Massachusetts businesses that had adjusted gross
incomes of $1 million or more. It is not unreasonable to
expect a similar multiplier effect for the number of
businesses affected, but the precise impact will require
more data from MADOR.
“Proponents like to call this a “millionaires tax” but at
best 1 in 5 of the people affected are millionaires,” said
Pioneer Executive Director Jim Stergios. “The great majority
are retirees and small businesses, who aren’t millionaires
hiding away in a mythical castle with a moat around it.
That’s what proponents want you to believe – but the facts
on this are very clear.”
State House News
Service
Thursday, January 20, 2021
Small Biz Owners Fear Income Surtax Will Dent Nest Eggs
Boatyard Owner Calls Tax "Slap In The Face"
By Colin A. Young
A handful of business owners from various sectors and from
around Massachusetts came together Thursday to call
attention to how the proposed surtax on income over $1
million would affect them and to push back against the
notion of the proposal is something that would affect only
the super-wealthy.
"The way this tax is portrayed in the media, it's like all
these rich people with boats and million-dollar houses and
are just having gobs and gobs of money to throw around. But
small businesses aren't like that," Ann Sullivan, who owns
Metro Equipment Corporation in Braintree, said. "This is our
nest egg. This is what I'm going to retire on and now I may
have to postpone my retirement because of this. So for me,
it's really it's affecting my day to day my life, my
choices, and also the choices of my employees."
Sullivan was one of six business owners convened by the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance and the Massachusetts chapter
of the National Federation of Independent Business, two
organizations that have worked to rally opposition to a
proposal that supporters call the millionaire's tax.
The House and Senate jointly voted 159-41 last June to let
voters decide on the 2022 statewide ballot whether to pass a
constitutional amendment imposing a new 4 percent surtax on
annual household income over $1 million.
If the surtax is approved by voters, the first $1 million of
household income would still be taxed at the current 5
percent income tax rate and all household income above and
beyond that first $1 million would be taxed at an effective
rate of 9 percent.
The proposal would not just affect individuals. Sen. Patrick
O'Connor estimated in 2019 that it could also apply to about
15,000 Massachusetts small businesses that file as
pass-through entities for tax purposes, and it would also be
charged on business owners who plan to sell their company to
support their own retirement.
"The proposal to raise the income taxes is a slap in the
face to small business. First in that it's an extra tax on
profits for a subchapter S corporation as most small
businesses are and, second of all, if my family ever decides
to sell this boatyard having put our life into it, we will
be paying an extra 4 percent that will reduce our retirement
income," Toby Burr, owner of Burr Brothers Boats in Marion,
said. "So I don't think people realize the extent to which
this tax is a penalty to small business."
Rep. Jim O'Day, the House sponsor of the proposed
Constitutional amendment, last June rejected opponents'
claims that the surtax would unduly harm small businesses in
the Bay State by asserting that "businesses earning over a
million dollars, in my estimation, are not small
businesses."
NFIB State Director Christopher Carlozzi said every business
on the call Thursday morning would be categorized as a small
business and said O'Day's comment "shows a lack of
understanding as to how small businesses operate in this
state."
"They're not walking away with a million dollars in their
pocket every year. It's the way their business is organized
for tax purposes and, as we've said, that's money that's
reinvested into job creation and really reinvesting into
Massachusetts," he said. "So it's very short-sighted to make
a comment like that when I'm sure the representative has a
lot of business owners in his district that would be very
much impacted by this."
Democrats on Beacon Hill have been pursuing the tax policy
change for years and supporters say the surtax could
generate significant annual revenue earmarked for education
and transportation, without dipping into the pockets of most
residents. But critics have long said it could prompt
wealthy residents to move out of the Bay State and encourage
employers to steer clear of Massachusetts.
Mass. Fiscal held a similar press conference a week ago,
that one specifically to challenge the notion that the new
surtax revenue would be spent only on transportation and
education. And the latest estimate of the surtax's potential
showed that it may not generate quite as much money as
previously thought.
A study released earlier this month from the Center for
State Policy Analysis at Tufts University showed the
amendment would generate about $1.3 billion in revenue for
the state. It estimated that the proposed new surtax would
be levied on about 21,000 state taxpayers, or less than 1
percent of all households in the state, who earn about 22
percent of all taxable income in Massachusetts.
The $700 million difference between the previous $2 billion
estimate and the new Center for State Policy Analysis
projection is partly explained by the expectation that some
high-earning people will leave Massachusetts or use "tax
avoidance" strategies to lower their tax burdens.
Still, the idea appears popular with voters across
Massachusetts more than nine months before they will be
asked to cast a vote on the proposal in November.
A new poll released by the MassINC Polling Group this month
showed that 70 percent of registered voters support the
effort to amend the Constitution to add the surtax on
households that earn more than $1 million a year.
State House News
Service
Thursday, January 20, 2021
Healey Takes Record As AG Into Guv’s Race
Boston Dem Wants State On "Bigger and Better" Path Forward
By Matt Murphy
A new chapter in the race for governor began Thursday with
Attorney General Maura Healey launching her campaign under
dark, wintry skies, entering a race in which she will
instantly be considered the front-runner to succeed Gov.
Charlie Baker and win back the corner office for Democrats.
Healey, 50, catapulted onto the state's political scene in
2014 when, as an underdog, she won her first campaign for
political office to become the state's top law enforcement
officer. Since then, she has taken on President Donald Trump
in court and challenged major corporations like Exxon Mobil
and Purdue Pharma.
Now she must prove to voters that she has the skills and
vision for a broader role overseeing all of state government
as Massachusetts looks to rebound from a deadly pandemic
that has altered everything from commerce to education.
"I recognize that some people know me because I've been
attorney general for a few years now. I also recognize that
in a state of 7 million people a lot of people don't know
me. So we're just at the beginning now," Healey said, making
her first campaign stop at a T station in Maverick Square in
East Boston.
Healey got her campaign started under a light drizzle,
pledging to make an economic recovery from the COVID-19
pandemic "job one." Though she offered few specifics of what
she might look to do, Healey identified the cost of living
in Massachusetts as one of the biggest issues that needs
addressing, from the prices of housing, child care and and
health care to gasoline.
"I understand people are tired right now. I understand that
people wonder if we're ever going to get through this and
out of this. And I'm just here to say we are, and we will
and we will move forward in ways that are bigger and better
than ever imagined," Healey told reporters.
The Boston Democrat officially ended months of speculation
with the release of a video early Thursday morning
announcing her candidacy for governor. She joins a
Democratic field that already includes two women of color -
state Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz and Harvard political scientist
Danielle Allen.
Healey's position as the only statewide elected official in
the race for governor affords her several early advantages
in the Democratic primary, including broader name
recognition and a campaign account flush with nearly $3.7
million in cash on hand. She would also be the first woman
and first openly gay person elected governor in
Massachusetts history.
Her opponents, however, quickly tried to frame her as the
establishment candidate as they call for sweeping change
across state government, including things like fare-free
public transit.
"In this time of crisis, we need a robust conversation about
how our government serves working families and meets our
biggest challenges. Maura and I have differing records when
it comes to priorities and governing, and I look forward to
her joining the ongoing conversation we're having with
voters across Massachusetts," Chang-Diaz said in a statement
Wednesday evening.
Allen also responded by pointing to her own work on the
campaign trail and saying Massachusetts needs "a choice
between a perspective ready to meet the moment and business
as usual."
"This election is about the urgent challenges we're facing —
from the pandemic, to the climate crisis, to racial
injustice, to the strains on our democracy," Allen said.
"Every single day, in every community in Massachusetts,
people are struggling with the impacts of these challenges.
So status quo is not an option. We need a fresh perspective
that can see beyond the politics and start bringing us
together to build solutions."
Healey said she would leave it to others to decide if she
was sufficiently progressive, or had the vision to lead
Massachusetts forward.
"I guess I'd say look at my record. I think that's what
people have to do. They have to hear my words. They have to
look at what I've done. They have to look at what I say that
I would do. And I'll let that, in some ways, speak for
itself," Healey said.
A MassINC poll released earlier this month found that 33
percent of registered voters had a favorable opinion of
Healey, compared to 17 percent with a negative view of her,
while 26 percent were undecided and 22 percent had never
heard of her.
Healey made her first campaign stop at Maverick Square T
station where she greeted voters, introducing herself behind
a black face mask. She was joined by Rep. Adrian Madaro and
Senator-elect Lydia Edwards, neither of whom have formally
endorsed her campaign but were there to welcome her to their
home of East Boston.
"I think there will be a time and a place for an
endorsement. For now I'm just excited by her announcement
and to have her here in East Boston," Madaro said.
Healey endorsed Edwards in the special election she won in
January, but Edwards said she was focused right now on
getting started in the Senate and preparing for her own
reelection campaign, and called it "presumptuous" that she
would get involved in statewide politics at this stage in
the race.
With Baker opting against seeking a third term, Democrats
have grown increasingly optimistic about their chances in
November. Healey declined to say whether she would be
running for governor if Baker had opted to seek another
term, describing that as "so rear view right now."
"I'll tell you I'm here today and I'm psyched about it,"
Healey said.
She also declined an opportunity to criticize Baker's
management of the COVID-19 pandemic.
"I think that there are any number of ways for people to
second guess decisions made by governors, mayors from this
time. I will say what I think should continue to guide us is
science," Healey said.
Asked whether schools should be allowed to return to remote
learning during this COVID-19 surge, Healey said
"flexibility" was important as COVID-19 conditions change,
but did not call for such a step to be taken.
"I think we've got to continue to be guided by what's
happening in terms of rate of infection," she said.
Baker would not say what he thought of Healey as a candidate
for the job he has held the past seven years, but in general
he said he thinks voters are looking for someone
"authentic," and his advice to all candidates would be,
"Just be yourself."
"I think what voters want most of all are people who will
focus on the work and not the noise," Baker said.
On the Republican side of the race, former state Rep. Geoff
Diehl is the only candidate running. Diehl linked the timing
of Healey's campaign launch to Thursday's one-year
anniversary of President Joe Biden taking office, blaming
Democrats in Washington for inflation, business closures and
the struggles of schools to educate all children.
"Maura Healey's announcement signals the start of a race by
Democratic candidates to double down on these failed
policies right here in Massachusetts," Diehl said. "Whomever
emerges from the trio of radical progressives, the choice
will be clear and easy for Massachusetts: live under
government control of every aspect of your life, or live in
a state where you're free to choose a school, a career and a
life of self-direction and unlimited opportunity."
Baker has barely commented on Diehl's candidacy, but the
moderate Republican has feuded with the conservative GOP
base that the Whitman Republican represents. The governor
said he's aware of other Republicans considering running,
but called it a "personal decision" they will have to make
for themselves, and not something he was focused on.
Prior to becoming attorney general, Healey worked on civil
rights cases in the office and helped successfully challenge
the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court. The
Hampton Falls, New Hampshire native graduated from Harvard
College, where she captained the women's basketball team,
and earned her law degree from Northeastern University after
playing basketball professionally in Europe for a few years.
In 2014, Healey decided to run for attorney general and
defeated the more well-known Warren Tolman in a hard fought
Democratic primary, making her an immediate rising star in
the party. That status put her at the top of the list for
many Democrats hoping to win the open governor's race this
year, and it didn't take long on Thursday for endorsements
to start to flow in.
Teamsters Local 25 President Sean O'Brien said Healey had a
"long history of working with our union and fighting for our
members."
"During these challenging times, Massachusetts needs a
strong, tested leader who will put people over politics
while also leveraging our competitive advantage to protect
and create jobs. Maura is a champion for our members who
isn't afraid to fight greedy corporations who refuse to
respect workers," O'Brien said in his union's endorsement of
the attorney general.
Barbara Lee, founder of the Barbara Lee Political Office,
also announced her backing of Healey, calling her a
"once-in-a-lifetime candidate" and a "role model for women's
leadership."
Lee's organization works to elect progressive women to
offices around the country, and its endorsement of Healey
stands out in a field currently compromised of three
Democratic women.
"Maura Healey is visionary and fearless on behalf of the
people of Massachusetts and the country. She has the
qualifications, track record, and commitment to public
service to be an extraordinary governor," Lee said.
The Boston
Globe
Thursday, January 20, 2022
Maura Healey launches campaign for governor,
promising to ‘continue with what’s working and fix what’s
not’
By Emma Platoff and Matt Stout
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who made
herself a nationally known figure with lawsuits against the
Trump administration and big corporations, formally launched
her campaign for governor on Thursday, immediately becoming
the race’s presumptive frontrunner.
In her first public remarks as a gubernatorial candidate,
the second-term Democrat pitched herself as an experienced
public servant prepared to grow her purview from legal
issues to kitchen-table ones, and get the Massachusetts
economy “back on track.” And though she has built a
reputation as a progressive, Healey resisted such labels on
Thursday, instead striking a moderate tone that avoided
calls for sweeping change.
“If something’s working, then let’s keep with it. And if
it’s not working, let’s figure out what we need to do,”
Healey, 50, said to a small crowd of media and supporters
outside an East Boston MBTA station on a cold, wet morning.
The South End Democrat described that approach as her
“general governing philosophy” and stressed the need to
target specific problems, such as the cost of living and
high-priced childcare.
“It’s a moment of possibility. It’s a moment of opportunity
as well,” Healey said. “And I think that I’m the person that
brings the right kind of skills, the right kind of
perspectives, the right kind of know-how to move us
forward.”
Analysts say Healey’s $3.7 million war chest and higher name
recognition make her the candidate to beat. With the state’s
top two Republicans, Governor Charlie Baker and Lieutenant
Governor Karyn Polito, out of this year’s race, Democrats
are bullish on their chances to win back the office — and
many believe Healey has a good shot at doing it.
“An A-lister has entered the race,” Erin O’Brien, a
political science professor at the University of
Massachusetts Boston. “She comes in with money, she comes in
with name recognition in the country, she comes in with bona
fides in terms of pushing back on Trumpism. And the other
candidates just can’t boast that.”
There are three other major candidates in the race: state
Senator Sonia Chang-Díaz and Harvard professor Danielle
Allen, both Democrats, and Republican Geoff Diehl, a former
state representative who lost a US Senate bid in 2018.
Any of the three Democrats would make history as the first
woman elected Massachusetts governor; Chang-Dίaz, who is
Latina, and Allen, who is Black, would each be the first
woman of color to hold the position. Healey was the nation’s
first openly gay state attorney general, and if she wins,
she would be the first openly gay person elected
Massachusetts governor. Just two openly LGBTQ people have
been elected governor in the United States.
Healey’s entrance could discourage other hopefuls from
entering the field, though the contours of the race remain
uncertain. US Labor Secretary Martin J. Walsh has been
encouraged to consider running, according to people close to
the former Boston mayor, though Walsh has been considered
unlikely to mount a campaign if Healey was in the race.
The thrust of Healey’s remarks on Thursday — that the state
should target glaring issues while leaving much intact —
immediately set her apart from her two Democratic rivals,
who have cast this year’s governor’s race as an opportunity
to transform the status quo. Healey’s narrower approach may
prove popular with Massachusetts voters; in polling over the
years, majorities of residents have consistently said they
believe the state is headed in the right direction.
Massachusetts is consistently at or near the top of national
rankings for public education and access to health
insurance, but it is also one of the most unequal states in
the country.
In Healey’s first hours as a candidate, she sidestepped a
reporter’s question about whether she considers herself an
“uber-progressive” Democrat, saying she’d leave it to
“others to characterize my record.”
And unlike the other two Democrats, who have woven criticism
of Baker into their campaigns, Healey avoided any direct
critiques of the incumbent, who is not seeking reelection
this year.
“There are any number of ways for people to second-guess
decisions made by governors [or] mayors during this time,”
Healey said in response to a question about how her approach
to the pandemic would differ from Baker’s. “What I think
should continue to guide us is science.”
For his part, Baker didn’t wade into the contest, telling
reporters at the State House on Thursday, “I’m not much of a
prognosticator, I never have been.”
“I think what voters want most of all are people who will
focus on the work and not the noise,” he added.
Healey offered few policy specifics or stances in her
nascent campaign, instead naming climate change and job
training as top priorities, as well as the need to
“modernize our schools.” Asked whether schools should be
required to offer in-person instruction amid a surge in
COVID-19 cases and mounting teacher and student absences,
Healey said the state needs “flexibility” in allowing remote
learning but did not directly call for it.
As she develops and pitches her policy platform, Healey will
have to persuade voters that her tenure as the state’s
lawyer has prepared her for the broad range of issues
governors must confront.
Her early focus stands in stark contrast to message of her
progressive opponents, who have called for “transformation”
since entering the race last year.
Chang-Díaz, for example, wants to make public transit
fare-free; Allen said she wants to eliminate fares for
low-income workers.
Chang-Díaz has embraced a “Green New Deal” for Massachusetts
that includes stopping the construction of new fossil fuel
infrastructure as part of a climate plan. Allen has pitched
a “Democracy agenda” to make the governor’s office subject
to public records law — it currently considers itself exempt
— and Massachusetts the first state to “undo the impact of
Citizens United,” the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that allowed
corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money
to influence elections.
Some analysts said Healey is wise to center her campaign on
economic issues.
Doug Rubin, a veteran Democratic strategist who is not
involved with any of the gubernatorial campaigns, said
inflation, COVID-19, and the inequity the pandemic has
exacerbated has pushed economic concerns to the “front and
center in a lot of voters’ minds.”
”The candidates that don’t address that up front, it’s going
to look like they’re out of touch,” Rubin said. “Maura, to
her credit, has addressed that right up front.”
Healey’s campaign began to build rapid momentum in the hours
after her pre-dawn announcement, raising $100,000 in the
first six hours alone, an aide said. And she earned early
endorsements from Teamsters Local 25, the Democratic
Attorneys General Association, and Barbara Lee, who heads a
political operation and research foundation that advocate
for women’s equality in American politics.
Her rivals were even quicker to put out statements pitching
themselves as superior options.
“I’m in this race — and I’ve been in it for a year — to make
sure Massachusetts has a real choice,” Allen said on
Wednesday. “A choice between a perspective ready to meet the
moment and business as usual. And a choice between the
narrow solutions our politics have been offering us, or a
chance to reimagine the possible.”
Chang-Dίaz, who launched her campaign last June, framed the
race on Thursday as one of “different styles, different
priorities, and different records.”
“I think there are some clear differentiators up front about
[having] the willingness to take on tough fights, even when
they’re hard and they’re inconvenient,” said Chang-Dίaz, a
Jamaica Plain Democrat and veteran progressive lawmaker.
Diehl, a conservative Republican who is running, called
Healey and the other two major candidates a “trio of radical
progressives” and said the choice for Massachusetts voters
should be clear: “Live under government control of every
aspect of your life, or live in a state where you’re free to
choose a school, a career and a life of self-direction and
unlimited opportunity.”
Healey grew up in the small town of Hampton Falls, N.H., one
of five children with a single mother. Standing just
5-foot-4, Healey captained Harvard’s varsity women’s
basketball team, and played the sport professionally in
Europe for two years, experiences she said taught her the
importance of teamwork.
A graduate of Harvard College and Northeastern University
School of Law, Healey worked in the attorney general’s
office for seven years before successfully campaigning to
lead it. Her tenure included leading the agency’s bureaus of
Public Protection and Business and Labor. She also worked as
chief of the civil rights division, and led Massachusetts’
fight against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which
defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
In her two terms as attorney general, Healey has used a role
sometimes seen as merely functionary to vault onto the
national stage. Along with Democratic attorneys general in
other states, she was involved in dozens of legal actions
against the Trump administration, battling over
environmental regulations, protections for student
borrowers, and deportations for so-called DACA dreamers. She
has also targeted corporate giants including ExxonMobil and
Purdue Pharma.
Healey enters the race with major advantages, not least of
which is her cash stockpile. But she also faces a perennial
challenge: Attorneys general who run for governor have often
struggled in this state. Analysts say the position is a
difficult vantage from which to run given the somewhat
limited role attorneys general play in many policy areas,
and the potential drawbacks of being seen as the state’s
“top cop.”
Healey’s decision also opens up the race for attorney
general, a contest that has already drawn a number of
Democratic contenders.
The Boston
Globe
Wednesday, January 19, 2022
Mass. businesses back financial relief on jobless claims
clawbacks
Employers urge compromise on $2.7 billion in overpayment to
hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers.
By Larry Edelman, Globe Columnist
Even before COVID-19 triggered a tsunami of layoffs, it was
hard to overstate just how frustrated businesses were with
the state’s unemployment insurance system.
Massachusetts has among the most generous jobless benefits
in the country, and it maintains a low bar for eligibility.
Businesses, which fund unemployment payouts through taxes,
see the state as an extravagant spender — of their money.
They resent that neither the Legislature nor the Baker
administration has made overhauling the broken system a
priority.
“Employers are frankly pretty fed up with special groups
which simply point at the business community and the funding
side to seek solvency and higher benefits,” said Jon Hurst,
president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts.
With that as context, consider what I reported on Monday:
The Department of Unemployment Assistance paid at least $2.7
billion over the past two years to hundreds of thousands of
people who got more money than they were due or who weren’t
eligible for compensation when they lost their jobs. The
overpayments I focused on were not caused by criminal fraud
but human error — by DUA staff or benefit-seekers.
It’s no surprise that employers don’t want to get stuck
paying for the DUA’s mistakes. But the business groups I
reached out to also recognize that the state is putting a
significant swath of unemployment recipients in a tough
spot: forcing them to repay benefits they applied for in
good faith, and probably have already spent.
“We need an approach that is both fair and preserves the
integrity of the system,” Jim Rooney, chief executive
officer of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, said in
an e-mail.
Right answer.
The state has the authority to claw back overpayments. And
we can’t let people who lied on their claim forms off the
hook. But these aren’t normal times. There needs to be some
accommodation for honest folks caught in the quagmire that
is the overwhelmed and overly bureaucratic DUA.
A logical approach, according to Rooney and others, would be
to tap a combination of leftover federal pandemic relief
money and the state’s budget surplus to waive some or all of
the overpayments. The Massachusetts unemployment insurance
trust fund is already slated to get $500 million from those
two pots of money to help build back from a negative balance
caused by the crush of all COVID-related claims.
“Massachusetts employers and employees acted in good faith
during 2020 and 2021 to navigate the unemployment insurance
system during a uniquely chaotic phase of the COVID-19
pandemic,” said Brooke Thomson, executive vice president of
government affairs at Associated Industries of
Massachusetts. “Neither group should now bear the brunt of
shouldering [the] overpayments.”
I know. It’s a lot of money for the state to forgo: About
$1.1 billion of the $2.7 billion in nonfraud-related
overpayments made by the DUA from the start of 2020 through
the end of September 2021 was pegged to the unemployment
trust fund.
The remaining $1.6 billion came out of federally funded
programs created by the Cares Act of 2020.
But there are couple of reasons not to go after nonfraud
overpayments.
First, between the state and federal programs, there are
383,000 claimants with open cases, Rosalin Acosta, secretary
of the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development,
said a legislative hearing last month. That’s a lot of
people to track down and make pay up.
“How much will it cost, especially when there will be legal
proceedings involved?” said the Boston Chamber’s Rooney, as
he wondered just what kind of return on investment the
clawback effort would yield, especially from smaller claims.
Second, clawbacks take money that would otherwise be largely
spent in the local economy, putting it back in the trust
fund or sending it to the US Treasury.
“It’s bad for people and bad for businesses,” said state
Senator Patricia Jehlen, a Democrat from Somerville who is
co-chair of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce
Development.
And third, penalizing unemployment recipients for the DUA’s
errors just doesn’t seem fair. It often took months for the
department to notify these folks, many of whom were relying
on jobless benefits to cover necessities like food, housing,
and utilities.
Jehlen agrees, but she’s hesitant to endorse a waiver or
other ways to ease the burden on people until she has more
information.
That isn’t easy when dealing with the sclerotic DUA, which
is notorious for withholding information.
“We need an accounting,” Jehlen said.
True that, senator.
But we also need to upgrade our outmoded and expensive
unemployment system.
Funding and benefits need to be reassessed against the
burden on employers. Workers should have to contribute to
the insurance fund. The state has to modernize its
technology.
All this is being looked at in one way or another, but there
doesn’t seem to be any sense of urgency in the Legislature
or the Baker administration.
No wonder employers are steaming.
The Boston
Globe
Thursday, January 20, 2022
State needs to slow down on clawing back unemployment
overpayments
By Larry Edelman, Globe Columnist
“We’re listening.”
That’s essentially the message the Baker administration
sought to deliver Thursday as it belatedly provided details
on efforts to claw back billions of dollars in unemployment
payments it later determined shouldn’t have been paid.
In a bid to soften its image as it duns hundreds of
thousands of people, the Department of Unemployment
Assistance disclosed for the first time that it has dropped
nearly $1.2 billion in repayment demands issued since the
pandemic triggered a tsunami of layoffs in March 2020. It
backed off after claimants provided additional proof they
were truly eligible for benefits. The DUA said it has also
approved $600 million financial hardship or equity waivers.
But even after those moves, the department has $2.6 billion
in “apparent outstanding overpayments,” the first time it
has said how much money is currently in dispute. About 85
percent of that amount came from federal pandemic programs,
the rest from the state.
More on that split momentarily. But first some background
for those of you who feel like you’ve walked into a movie 20
minutes late.
On Monday I reported on the clawbacks and said there must be
a way to lessen the burden on all the folks who applied for
jobless benefits in good faith. I noted that while
overpayments were routine before the pandemic, the dollars
involved today are much larger. That’s because the DUA took
a long time to catch up with its mistakes and because
benefit amounts were boosted by pandemic payments from
Washington.
Two days later I followed up with an online column asking
whether some or all of the overpayments could be repaid with
a mix of federal pandemic relief aid and state budget
surplus dollars. That was an idea suggested to me,
independently, by the leaders of three big employer groups
in the state.
Until this point, the DUA had declined to provide any data
on overpayments beyond what Rosalin Acosta, secretary of the
Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, told a
legislative hearing last month. Acosta, who oversees DUA,
said there were 383,000 claimants with open cases but didn’t
provide a total dollar amount the state was trying to
reclaim.
Luckily, the DUA sends a lot of data to Washington, which
the Labor Department puts into various reports. An
employment attorney at Community Legal Aid, which provides
free legal help in Western Massachusetts, analyzed those
reports. The bottom line: from March 2020 to September 2021,
DUA made $2.7 billion in overpayments — excluding any
reversals or waivers — with $1.1 billion, or 42 percent,
attributed to the state unemployment program, which is
funded by employers through taxes.
Yes, that’s not exactly what the DUA is saying now. But
that’s because the Labor Department presents the numbers
differently from the state. It’s apples and oranges. At
least that’s the state’s explanation, and it says it wasn’t
aware of the discrepancy until this week.
Either way, it’s a lot of money. And the big question is
whether it makes sense for the state to cut a break for
anyone who wasn’t at fault for the overpayments — even if
the DUA is entitled to get it back.
My colleague Shirley Leung talked with state Auditor Suzanne
Bump, who said she doesn’t think the state should forgive
the debt and move on.
”Program integrity is essential for government trust,” she
said. “Overall the program of clawing back is appropriate
and required under the law.”
But the situation is a mess.
The number of open overpayments is huge. Clawbacks take
money that would otherwise be largely spent in the local
economy, putting it back in the trust fund or sending it to
the US Treasury.
And penalizing unemployment recipients for the DUA’s errors
just doesn’t seem fair. It often took months for the
department to notify these folks, many of whom were relying
on jobless benefits to cover necessities like food, housing,
and utilities.
For its part, the DUA “has a robust process in place to work
with claimants to resolve apparent and actual overpayments,”
according to a spokesperson. And the department plans an
outreach campaign, including a new waiver request Web page
and a letter to all claimants with an overpayment to promote
the option to seek a waiver.
Still, hitting the pause button to sort everything out seems
like the right thing to do even if, as Bump said, the US
Office of Inspector General is pushing Massachusetts and
other states to recover the overpaid federal claims.
“I would absolutely support a freeze,” Senator James
Eldridge, cochair of the Senate Post Audit and Oversight
Committee, told me on Thursday.
It’s time for the Legislature and the Baker administration
to take action.
State House News
Service
Friday, January 21, 2022
Weekly Roundup - Musical Chairs
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Matt Murphy
The names stretch out behind her, well-known in state
political lore, like ghosts of elections past: Quinn,
Harshbarger, Reilly, Coakley. They were all incumbent
attorneys general who endeavored to become governor, only to
fall short.
But Maura Healey's not thinking about the past.
"Probably the shortest that's ever run," Healey said
Thursday when asked why her bid for the top job in state
government might be different from those of her
predecessors.
The 5-foot-4-inch former point guard launched her campaign
for governor this week, and for the first time in the year
since the first Democrat entered the 2022 gubernatorial race
it finally felt like the campaign had begun. Game on.
Healey put one question behind her hours after making her
campaign official. She was willing to shake hands in the
cold, dropping by East Boston's Maverick Square to meet the
press and greet commuters under a winter drizzle. She opened
her campaign with a hopeful economic message, promising to
tackle cost-of-living issues that have long dogged
Massachusetts, but have only become worse during the
COVID-19 pandemic: housing, health care and child care.
"I understand people are tired right now. I understand that
people wonder if we're ever going to get through this and
out of this. And I'm just here to say we are, and we will
and we will move forward in ways that are bigger and better
than ever imagined," Healey said.
It's been written many times over the past few days that
Healey enters the race as the prohibitive favorite. But just
ask Tom Reilly how quickly that title can be snatched away.
Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz and Danielle Allen both showed by
their welcoming of Healey that neither are prepared to lay
down, passively tagging the prosecutor with the
establishment label they are looking to rip off of state
government.
For now, Healey is riding the wave. Her campaign pulled in
$207,376 in donations in the 24 hours after her launch video
went live, a one-day sum equal to half of the personal
record she set in December when she collected over $400,000
from donors eager to give her encouragement. Turns out
running can be as lucrative as the tease.
Gov. Charlie Baker flew above the political fray this week,
sticking with the focused-on-the-work message that he chose
last month when he decided to watch campaign 2022 unfold
from the sidelines.
The governor rolled out new COVID-19 testing strategies for
schools and early education centers, deploying some of the
26 million rapid antigen tests his administration purchased
from iHealth to keep classrooms open, and shifting some of
the testing responsibilities to students and parents.
First, Baker said K-12 schools that wanted to could end
their test-and-stay programs and begin to receive rapid
tests for students and staff to take home weekly as part of
a new virus surveillance program. Meanwhile, testing
supplies to extend "test-and-stay" to center-based and
family day care centers will start to ship by the end of the
month in an effort to keep day cares open for children and
working parents who rely on them.
Instead of shuttering classrooms when a COVID-19 case
arises, Baker said, day care centers could test children and
staff daily who are close contacts and allow them to stay in
the classroom.
The Legislature also had school safety on their minds as
leaders put together a $55 million package to expand testing
capacity and distribute personal protective equipment. The
bill that unanimously cleared the House contained $30
million to set up and expand COVID-19 testing sites and
boost childhood vaccination rates, and another $25 million
to purchase and distribute masks in public schools.
The Senate is expected to take up the COVID-19 response bill
next week, according to Senate Ways and Means Chairman
Michael Rodrigues, and when it does it will have a new
member.
Sen. Lydia Edwards, an East Boston Democrat, took her oath
of office Thursday to join the Senate as "lucky number 13,"
raising the number of women in the body to a baker's dozen.
While the Senate was restored to full strength, the exodus
from the House picked up steam, with news about five women
who are moving on. Claire Cronin gave her farewell speech to
colleagues after being sworn in as President Joe Biden's
ambassador to Ireland, while Rep. Lori Ehrlich got tapped to
lead the New England office of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Rep. Maria Robinson had her confirmation hearing to join the
U.S. Department of Energy scheduled before a Senate
committee for Feb. 3, Rep. Sheila Harrington was tapped by
Baker for the clerk magistrate job in Gardner District
Court, and Methuen Rep. Linda Dean Campbell announced her
plans to retire at the end of the term to spend more time
with her family.
House Speaker Ron Mariano must now decide whether it makes
sense to schedule special elections to replace some of these
departing members or leave them empty until next year. If
history is any guide, resignations that occur early in an
election year often lead to extended vacancies.
When former Rep. Vincent Pedone resigned in 2012 in
mid-January, then-Speaker Robert DeLeo opted against calling
for a special election out of concern that the timing could
cause confusion for voters with candidates simultaneously
running for election, and gathering signatures to qualify
for the November ballot as well. In Cronin's case,
redistricting is an additional complicating factor with her
district set to be merged with Rep. Gerard Cassidy's for the
fall elections.
Healey's leap into the governor's race shifted the focus of
the will-they-won't-they guessing game to the office she's
giving up, and the Democrats are swarming.
Shannon Liss-Riordan and Quentin Palfrey, past contenders
for statewide office, took steps to prepare for campaigns
even before Healey made her intentions clear. And Andrea
Campbell, the former Boston city councilor fresh off a 2021
run for mayor, and New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell are also
said to be mulling a bid to be the state's top law
enforcement officer.
Middlesex DA Marian Ryan has not ruled out a run for
attorney general and why would she? The three AGs before
Healey -- Harshbarger, Reilly and Coakley -- each made the
jump from Middlesex DA to attorney general.
Treasurer Deborah Goldberg and Secretary of State William
Galvin are now the only two constitutional officers to have
not explicitly announced their 2022 plans. Whether Galvin
runs or not, Democrat Tanisha Sullivan, president of the
Boston branch of the NAACP, plans to make the case to voters
that she should oversee elections, corporations and
securities and public records in Massachusetts.
STORY OF THE WEEK: After years of talk and hypotheticals --
and with the popular Republican governor on the sidelines --
Healey starts her drive to the gubernatorial basket.
— Colin A. Young contributed
to this report.
State House News
Service
Friday, January 21, 2022
Advances - Week of Jan. 23, 2022
Gov. Charlie Baker in July signed a $47.6 billion annual
state budget, put his name on a $4 billion COVID-19 relief
bill in December, and on Wednesday launches the fiscal 2023
budget debate. It's the governor's final budget proposal and
the first one he will issue under his new lame duck status.
Baker on Tuesday night will deliver his last State of the
State address, remarks that will also be consumed through
the lens of the evolving race among candidates to succeed
him. A new governor will be in place at this time next year,
preparing their first budget and inheriting management of
the spending bill Beacon Hill is about to assemble.
With state tax collections consistently smashing
projections, Baker's team and Democratic legislative leaders
have agreed on a projected 2.7 percent increase in tax
receipts for the coming fiscal year, but that increase is
based on a fiscal 2022 estimate that the administration this
month ratcheted upwards by $1.5 billion. Compared to the
original estimate for the current fiscal year ($30.12
billion), the forecast for fiscal 2023 ($36.915 billion)
would represent growth of more than 22 percent, so there's
no revenue crunch at the moment and the extent of state
revenue-sharing with local government could emerge as a
topic of debate in the coming months.
With infections still at elevated levels, the Senate on
Wednesday plans to advance the $55 million bill (H 4345) the
House approved this week to invest in masks, COVID-19
testing and youth vaccinations. Branch leaders agree on the
broad contours of the bill and want to get it to Baker's
desk quickly, with the biggest question being whether
they'll get hung up on differences over amendments.
Late Friday, House leaders signaled plans to circle back to
voting law reforms that have expired, with a formal session
set for Thursday to take up reform legislation (S.2554) that
cleared the Senate 36-3 last October.
State House News
Service
Thursday, January 20, 2022
Mass General Brigham Backs Fee To Address Housing Crunch
Transfer Tax Bills Haven't Caught On At State House
By Michael P. Norton
Citing housing affordability hurdles that are compounding
workforce challenges, one of the state's largest health care
employers is getting behind a proposal to allow cities and
towns in Massachusetts to put a new fee on housing
transactions.
Mass General Brigham submitted testimony Wednesday to the
Joint Committee on Housing in support of bills that would
enable municipalities to impose of a fee of between 0.5 and
2 percent of the price of certain housing transactions in
order to generate revenue to preserve affordable housing and
fund new homes construction. The fee rate, and any
exemptions, would be set locally, giving communities
flexibility in crafting parameters.
As proposed, the bills (H 1377 and S 868) call for the new
fees to be applied only on transactions featuring prices
that are above the statewide or county median single-family
home price.
If approved, the transfer fee could be in addition to
property tax surcharges imposed in nearly 200 communities
that have adopted the Community Preservation Act (CPA), a
law approved in 2000 that permits a local charge of up to 3
percent to pay for open space protection, historic
preservation, affordable housing and outdoor recreation.
More than 8,700 affordable housing units have been created
and 14,700 more units supported with CPA funds.
Mass General Brigham, which employs more than 80,000 people
and oversees a care system that treats more than 1.5 million
patients annually, says high housing costs make health care
workforce challenges particularly acute at its hospitals on
Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. But Elsie Taveras, chief
community health equity officer at Mass General Brigham,
says strained household housing budgets are also tied to
health outcomes.
"Health and housing are inextricably linked, and research
has demonstrated the connection between housing stability
and health outcomes. The lack of affordable housing, and
other social determinants of health, plague many
neighborhoods disproportionately - particularly communities
of color - leading to alarming health disparities," Taveras
wrote in testimony to the committee, a copy of which was
obtained by the News Service.
Taveras cited research released in June 2021 by The Boston
Foundation that found the health of children and caregivers
improved when they had access to stable housing, with the
average number of emergency department visits dropping from
2.3 visits to 1.3 over a 12-month period.
Supporters of the bill say a new fee is justified because
runaway housing costs are increasingly hampering the ability
of employers to sustain workforces across industries,
including the restaurant, retail, education and public
safety sectors.
Real estate industry officials over the years have
successfully bottled up proposals to impose new fees on
property transactions, arguing against the idea of making
housing costs higher in order to address a problem that is a
statewide issue and the focus of numerous, longstanding
government-sponsored housing programs.
Bill supporters counter that Massachusetts was ranked the
the third least least affordable state in the nation by the
National Low Income Housing Coalition, evidence that more
must be done to address the problem.
"The cry can be heard from every corner of the state, large
and small, urban and rural: we cannot find affordable places
for people to live," said Pamela Schwartz, director of the
Western Massachusetts Network to End Homelessness. "This
Transfer fee legislation is a critical response to this
all-hands-on-deck situation. We must give our local
communities the option to use it."
Mass General Brigham's support for the bill was announced by
the Transfer Fee for Affordable Housing Coalition, a group
of more than 70 community organizations, housing and
planning agencies, and municipalities that also supports
bills filed by individual municipalities where officials
have already backed proposed transfer fees.
Communities that have passed real estate transfer fee home
rule petitions include Boston, Concord, Somerville,
Nantucket, Brookline, Provincetown, Chatham, Cambridge and
Arlington, according to the coalition's website.
The bill's sponsors, Sen. Jo Comerford of Northampton and
Rep. Michael Connolly of Cambridge, welcomed the support
from Mass General Brigham. The company's backing could help
build momentum for the bill on Beacon Hill, although it has
not been mentioned as a priority matter by Democratic
legislative leaders who exercise great control over which
bills emerge in the House and Senate for votes and which
ones remain in committees.
The Housing Committee faces a Feb. 2 deadline to make a
recommendation on the bill. The committee is co-chaired by
Democrat Sen. John Keenan of Quincy and Rep. James Arciero
of Westford.
|
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
|
