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


Help save yourself join CLT today!


CLT introduction  and membership  application

What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone

Make a contribution to support CLT's work by clicking the button above

Ask your friends to join too

Visit CLT on Facebook

Barbara Anderson's Great Moments

Follow CLT on Twitter

CLT UPDATE
Monday, March 21, 2022

Inconsistencies and Absurdities Abound


Jump directly to CLT's Commentary on the News


Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)


PAY FINE FOR NOT VOTING (H 788) - Would require eligible voters to cast a ballot in every November general election or face a fine of $15 that would be added to the person’s state tax liability for each election missed. The measure also clarifies that the voter does not have to actually vote for anyone and is allowed to leave the ballot blank....

“Freedom of religion means government cannot restrict the practice of any faith – nor the lack of it,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “Freedom of speech prohibits government from regulating speech – or requiring it. In the same fashion, a citizen’s sacred right to vote should not and does not give government the power to mandate its exercise. This frivolous proposed mandate once again demonstrates that ‘fulltime’ Massachusetts legislators have far too much idle time on their hands.”

Beacon Hill Roll Call
March 14-18, 2022
Pay Fine for Not Voting (H 788)
By Bob Katzen


Following the Biden administration’s restoration of California’s authority to set more stringent vehicle emission standards than federal rules, Massachusetts is poised to follow suit by imposing a 2035 ban on new gasoline-powered vehicles, potentially setting the stage for the next major fight over how to meet state climate goals.

Massachusetts is one of sixteen states bound by California’s automobile emission standards, a policy implemented in 1991 under the Massachusetts Clean Air Act that assures the state has some of the strictest anti-pollution measures for new cars trucks.

Governor Gavin Newsom of California signed an executive order in 2020 requiring state regulators to compel the sale of solely zero-emission automobiles by 2035, and [Gov.] Baker included the idea in his December 2020 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap.

“As a result, the promise by the state of Massachusetts to phase out internal combustion engines by 2035 is one to which we are committed,” Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides stated last month at a Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change hearing.

A combination of free-market think tanks is now challenging this position and advocacy groups led locally by the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. They believe the state should decouple from California.

“For us in Massachusetts, MassFiscal and Citizens for Limited Taxation are going to fight tooth and nail to ensure that motorists have options and that the free market, not the governor of California, determines what people want,” Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul Craney said....

“Citizens oppose autopilot legislation,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, adding, “We’re trying to restore accountability to any of these laws, particularly something as drastic as this, which would prohibit internal combustion engines.” ...

Meg Hansen, head of the Vermont-based Ethan Allen Institute, predicted that a ban on gasoline-powered automobiles would fail in rural areas like hers, where public transportation is unavailable, and zero-emission technology is “neither inexpensive nor easily available.”

“Vermont is not a California colony,” Hansen stated. “For Vermont politicians to transfer regulatory control over our standards to another state is anti-democratic and foolish.”

The California Examiner
Sunday, March 13, 2022
By 2035, Massachusetts plans to phase out new gasoline-powered automobiles


Massachusetts is not even remotely close to the number of electric vehicles on its roads needed to meet climate goals, but a top Baker administration official said Thursday she intends to "fight" for funding in a new bill to expand charging options and other needed infrastructure.

Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides joined Gov. Charlie Baker on Thursday to help roll out a $9.7 billion multi-year borrowing bill for transportation infrastructure that she said includes money for charging infrastructure, helping companies transition fleets to electric vehicles, school bus electrification and more....

With around 36,000 electric vehicles on the road in Massachusetts, the proliferation of these zero-emission cars and trucks significantly trails the 1 million vehicle benchmark officials have used as necessary to reduce carbon emissions by 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2030....

Massachusetts will require that all new passenger vehicles sold beginning in 2035 be zero-emission vehicles, in line with standards being finalized by California and in keeping with the Massachusetts Clean Air Act to follow the Golden State's emission standards....

To address "range anxiety" concerns that make drivers nervous about running out of charge on longer trips, Theoharides said the state is looking at ways to expand charging capacity to city streets and parking garages....

One of her biggest regrets, she said, was not being able to bring the regional Transportation Climate Initiative to fruition. Theoharides called it "disappointing" that the multi-state collaborative to reduce carbon emissions from transportation fell apart, which she attributed in large part to COVID-19 and the influx of federal relief dollars that made the revenue possible from TCI less attractive to state leaders.

"You can't make a political leader do something they don't have the confidence to do," Theoharides said.

Opponents of the regional compact said states were not eager to sign on because of the likelihood that it would drive up gas prices.

State House News Service
Thursday, March 17, 2022
Mass. Shift To Electric Vehicles Lacks Charge
Theoharides Hopes $9.7 Bil Bill Will Create More Traction


The Pioneer Institute has both participated in a lawsuit and released a white paper alleging that a 2022 ballot question to tax the state’s millionaires is misleading voters.

The ballot question at hand, pertaining to the “millionaire’s tax” or the “Fair Share amendment,” would amend the state constitution to add a tax of 4% on annual incomes over $1 million in a given year. The funding raised would be earmarked for education and transportation spending.

Greg Sullivan, the author of Pioneer’s paper, argued that the question’s framing is misleading.

“The Supreme Court has already determined that the money doesn’t have to be spent for additional education and transportation funding, that it can be used to replace current funding, and then they take that funding and use it wherever they want,” he said, arguing that the language on the ballot question’s explanation should be clarified to reflect that.

A similar issue arose during debates of an earlier version of the ballot question, when House minority leader Brad Jones, R-North Reading, tried to add an amendment that would have guaranteed that the funds would be additive, rather than replacing funding from other sources, which failed.

At the time, Jones called the question as-is a “bait and switch.”

“Part of the reason we need to do this is because our track record as legislators in respecting the will of the voters on tax matters is not particularly good,” Jones said.

The Boston Herald
Friday, March 11, 2022
Massachusetts think tank alleges
millionaire’s tax ballot question is misleading


A proposed surtax on the state’s top earners would essentially be a “blank check” for Beacon Hill budget writers, who could divert the money for purposes other than education and transportation, according to new report.

The report, released by the Pioneer Institute, argues that despite claims by proponents that the proceeds from the “millionaires tax” would be dedicated for schools and transportation spending, the revenue will be “fungible.”

“If the initiative is adopted, legislators could circumvent its stated intent yet still be in compliance with it,” said Greg Sullivan, a senior analyst at Pioneer and author of the report. “They can simply reduce spending on education and transportation from other revenue sources and replace it with surtax money.”

Sullivan pointed to the state’s use of revenue from the 1998 tobacco settlement, which was intended to provide additional funding for anti-smoking campaigns but like tobacco taxes is frequently diverted by lawmakers for other budget spending....

A complaint filed by the Massachusetts High Technology Council and other groups argues that backers of the surtax may try to mislead voters by using an “inaccurate” summary of the referendum that says the money will be devoted solely for education and transportation.

The legal challenge, which is backed by the Pioneer Institute, asks justices to require that any summary of the ballot question for voters include a caveat that the state Legislature “could choose to reduce funding on education and transportation from other sources and replace it with the new surtax revenue because the proposed amendment does not require otherwise.”

The referendum, which was cleared for the November ballot by the Legislature, will ask Massachusetts voters to amend the state constitution to set a 4% surtax on the portion of an individual’s annual income over $1 million.

Newburyport Daily News
Wednesday, March 16, 2022
Report: 'Millionaires tax' a 'blank check' for Beacon Hill


Of roughly $2.6 billion in federal pandemic relief money that has been set aside for Massachusetts school districts, only about $431 million has been "claimed" and spent by school systems, a figure that Sen. Jason Lewis on Tuesday called "concerning."

The accounting of remaining federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) money came during a Joint Ways and Means Committee hearing Tuesday on Gov. Charlie Baker's $48.5 billion fiscal 2023 state budget, which calls for $5.989 billion in Chapter 70 aid to local schools. Some lawmakers and advocates have called for greater investments in education.

"Just to note, again, in total, Massachusetts schools districts have received $2.6 billion in federal pandemic relief funding ... As of the end of February, people may be surprised to learn, that only $431 million of that has actually been claimed by school districts and presumably spent. So that's 17 percent. So 17 percent has been spent as of the end of last month, so there's a lot of money -- over $2 billion -- that's still available," Lewis said during the hours-long hearing....

Lewis noted that districts have three more school years to spend money from the third and final round of ESSER. He also asked Education Secretary James Peyser and Elementary and Secondary Education Commissioner Jeff Riley how the state could "support and encourage our districts to use these resources."

"We have been very clear with the districts that they have to use this money, it is time-bound. I worry that some of them thought there might be an extension from the federal government on how to use the money. And while I don't think that would be a bad thing to have a several-year extension, I'm not sure it's coming," Riley said.

State House News Service
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
Mass. Schools Sitting on $2 Billion in Unspent Federal Aid


More than 40 percent of the state's school districts would receive the smallest possible bump in funding under the governor's budget plan, and administration officials and lawmakers alike agreed Tuesday that the minimum aid increase is not really much of an increase thanks to the high rate of inflation.

Of the state's 318 operating school districts, 135 would get minimum aid funding increases of $30 per student, which the Massachusetts Municipal Association and Rep. Natalie Blais said would represent "below-inflation aid increases of approximately 1 percent" for districts that would not otherwise see their aid amount increase under the state's funding formulas.

"Those districts would struggle mightily just to maintain existing programs and services. We don't think they would be able to do so at all," Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, told the Joint Ways and Means Committee during a hearing on the education and local aid portions of Gov. Charlie Baker's $48.5 billion fiscal 2023 budget plan....

[Rep. Natalie] Blais said she thought that "there must be other things, other ways, that you can consider to help address this issue for these communities," but [Education Secretary James] Peyser suggested that there really is not much more the administration could do and said the minimum increases would seem more generous if it were not for the high rates of inflation that have plagued the country since last year.

"Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to that question, in part because, as with many things as this committee understands, it comes down to money as well and then choices that are made," Peyser said. "But one thing I just note in particular that is particularly challenging this year is the high level of inflation, which means that normal efforts like minimum aid -- you know, $30 for minimum aid or $50 or whatever it might be -- don't quite seem as large as they would in a low-inflation environment. So there's definitely something unique about this particular year given the level of inflation."

State House News Service
Wednesday, March 16, 2022
Inflation Blunts Impact of School Aid Increases in Baker’s Budget


Democrats have been playing keep-away with inflation blame ever since costs started spiking following the party’s spending spree on Capitol Hill.

First, inflation was “transitory,” until Fed Chair Jerome Powell admitted that was the wrong call. Then fingers pointed back to the left’s favorite villain, big business, raising prices simply because they could. Again, no dice.

We were warned. Larry Summers, who was Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, wrote in The Washington Post in February of last year that Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan could “set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.”

And John Cochrane of the Hoover Institution notes in The Wall Street Journal that spending on COVID “stimulus” in 2020 and 2021 exploded federal debt nearly 30%. “Is it at all a surprise,” he asks, “that a year later inflation breaks out?”

It isn’t, even if the powers that be in D.C. are determined to pass the buck, even while wages fail to buy as much food and goods as they used to and gas price continue to spike.

That’s no crust off their ciabatta.

But perhaps this will make them take notice, if only for the effect it may have on midterm elections.

The same inflation that’s taking a bite out of the family budget is also eating into funding for schools and social programs.

We’re seeing that in Massachusetts, as the State House News Service reported this week that more than 40% of the state’s school districts would receive the smallest possible bump in funding under Gov. Charlie Baker’s budget plan. Administration officials and lawmakers agreed that the minimum aid increase is not really much of one thanks to the high rate of inflation....

And still they spend on Capitol Hill....

If the Democratic Party is looking for a new motto, may we suggest: Why learn from your mistakes when you can double down?

A Boston Herald editorial
Friday, March 18, 2022
Despite inflation, Dems keep on spending


The Massachusetts Senate plans next Thursday to consider a roughly $1.6 billion supplemental spending bill that largely mirrors the version that the House unanimously passed last week.

The Senate Ways and Means Committee released its redrafted version (S 2776) of the mid-year spending plan Thursday, proposing $1.64 billion in spending at a net cost of $850.1 million to the state. The Senate put the bill on its agenda for Thursday, March 24 and adopted an order giving senators until 3 p.m. Monday to file amendments.

Though the Senate version's bottom line appears slightly larger than what representatives adopted on March 9 (H 4578), the two bills are largely aligned.

Like the House bill, the Senate's supplemental budget includes the $700 million requested by Gov. Charlie Baker for COVID-19 pandemic-related expenses -- including $433 million for COVID testing, $72 million for treatments, $45.5 million for expanded vaccination access and more.

Both bills also call for $100 million to repair local roads damaged this winter, $100 million in rental assistance, $55 million for rate increases for human service providers, $10 million to support the resettlement of Ukrainian refugees and $140 million to support staffing and program needs at private special education schools....

After posting a surplus of about $5 billion in fiscal year 2021, state tax revenue has continued its trend of strong growth throughout fiscal 2022. Collections for the current fiscal year were outpacing revenue projections by more than $1 billion through February, even after the Baker administration upgraded estimates by $1.5 billion.

State House News Service
Thursday, March 17, 2022
Senate Priorities Align With House In $1.6 Bil Budget


It could be one helluva July on Beacon Hill.

True to his pledge not to become a lame-duck governor in his final year in office, Gov. Charlie Baker this week lobbed two significant pieces of legislation into the fray for consideration before the Legislature more or less shuts down after July 31 for campaign season.

If you're keeping track at home, the governor's new health care bill and his transportation investment plan join a legislative could-do list that already includes the fiscal year 2023 state budget (that one's really a must-do), a supplemental fiscal 2022 budget that includes loads of COVID response funding, the annual Chapter 90 bill to pay for local road projects and repairs, a Senate climate bill that could cover some of the same ground as the House-approved offshore wind bill, legislation to open up access to driver's licenses for immigrants without legal status in the country (already passed in the House), and more....

In other words, there's a lot to do in the next four-plus months....

The Democrats who hold supermajorities in the House and Senate will probably be more receptive to the $9.7 billion transportation bond bill that the Republican governor unveiled Thursday. The Legislature could certainly change Baker's bill to reflect its priorities but it's unlikely that lawmakers will quibble with Baker's aim to maximize the money Massachusetts could receive under the new federal infrastructure law....

Another of Baker's proposals, one to provide $700 million worth of tax relief to residents, already appears dead in the water. Beacon Hill Democrats say they are interested in pursuing some kind of tax relief before they are all up for reelection this fall, but the most detailed plans so far have come from Republicans.

"I don't have anything right off the top of my head, but we've been looking at these things even before the governor presented his tax package, so we are going to take a look at a number of different things," Mariano said Monday, adding that the House is exploring "more broad-based" options than what Baker offered.

The next day, House and Senate Republicans filed a trio of bills meant to relieve pressure on drivers by offering tax credits to commuters, creating new electric vehicle rebates, and suspending the state's gas tax for the next six months -- an idea that has no support from legislative leaders or the governor.

"We cannot stand idle while day after day people are facing the economic pain of paying for fuel to get to work, school, and medical appointments," Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr of Gloucester said....

Massachusetts has a long way to go when it comes to increasing electric vehicle take-up. The Bay State was already behind on EV adoption before the pandemic and now is even further behind the 1 million vehicle benchmark Baker administration officials have said will be necessary to hit the state's 2030 emissions reduction commitment.

The 36,000 electric vehicles on Massachusetts roads right now represent 3.6 percent of the state's goal. One thing holding many drivers back from shifting to an EV is the cost. Kelly Blue Book reported that the average transaction price for a new car topped $46,000 in October but that the average EV cost was above $56,000 before rebates. KBB said 51 percent of car shoppers surveyed said EVs were too expensive to seriously consider.

State House News Service
Friday, March 18, 2022
Weekly Roundup - Growing Could-Do List


Democrats — and by extension progressives and left-wing editorial writers — love to shed crocodile tears over the “death” of the Massachusetts Republican Party now that Gov. Charlie Baker is not seeking reelection.

But what they’re really sad about is the rise of the conservative wing of the party that is now in charge after routing Baker, the liberals and moderates of the GOP that have run things for years.

Under Baker and his GOP mentors, the Republican Party in Massachusetts functioned like a sub-committee of the Democratic Party.

Republicans like Paul Cellucci, Bill Weld and Charlie Baker could get elected governor in a Democratic state because they were essentially RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Those days are over.

Baker and the RINOs are on the run.

Donald Trump has more influence over Republicans in Massachusetts today than Baker does, a development that played a role in his decision not to seek a third term as governor....

Baker had lost control of the Republican State committee, now headed by former state Rep. Jim Lyons, a strong Trump supporter.

Baker has been a leading critic of fellow Republican Trump and seemed more comfortable in the left lane of American politics. Now it’s payback time, and Baker could read the writing on the wall....

The worse Joe Biden looks — and he looks pretty bad — the stronger Trump will be, as will the candidates he endorses and campaigns for. Diehl is one of them.

And to those who say that national politicians will not have much to do with state issues, just look at gas prices, let alone the supermarket.

Pocketbook issues make all politics local.

The Boston Herald
Saturday, March 19, 2022
Progressives prefer a charging RINO in the governor’s office — tough luck
By Peter Lucas


Chip Ford's CLT Commentary

On March 13, The California Examiner reported ("By 2035, Massachusetts plans to phase out new gasoline-powered automobiles"):

Following the Biden administration’s restoration of California’s authority to set more stringent vehicle emission standards than federal rules, Massachusetts is poised to follow suit by imposing a 2035 ban on new gasoline-powered vehicles, potentially setting the stage for the next major fight over how to meet state climate goals.

Massachusetts is one of sixteen states bound by California’s automobile emission standards, a policy implemented in 1991 under the Massachusetts Clean Air Act that assures the state has some of the strictest anti-pollution measures for new cars trucks.

Governor Gavin Newsom of California signed an executive order in 2020 requiring state regulators to compel the sale of solely zero-emission automobiles by 2035, and [Gov.] Baker included the idea in his December 2020 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap.

“As a result, the promise by the state of Massachusetts to phase out internal combustion engines by 2035 is one to which we are committed,” Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides stated last month at a Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change hearing.

A combination of free-market think tanks is now challenging this position and advocacy groups led locally by the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. They believe the state should decouple from California.

“For us in Massachusetts, MassFiscal and Citizens for Limited Taxation are going to fight tooth and nail to ensure that motorists have options and that the free market, not the governor of California, determines what people want,” Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul Craney said....

“Citizens oppose autopilot legislation,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, adding, “We’re trying to restore accountability to any of these laws, particularly something as drastic as this, which would prohibit internal combustion engines.” ...

Meg Hansen, head of the Vermont-based Ethan Allen Institute, predicted that a ban on gasoline-powered automobiles would fail in rural areas like hers, where public transportation is unavailable, and zero-emission technology is “neither inexpensive nor easily available.”

“Vermont is not a California colony,” Hansen stated. “For Vermont politicians to transfer regulatory control over our standards to another state is anti-democratic and foolish.”

But as with most if not all of the radical Left's "progressive" agenda, in dreaming up their mandates no consideration is given to practicality, never mind desirability.  Their strategy is simply to impose their vision on the hoi polloi then crush us into submission — and fund it with massive spending extracted from their victims.

On Thursday the State House News Service reported ("Mass. Shift To Electric Vehicles Lacks Charge; Theoharides Hopes $9.7 Bil Bill Will Create More Traction"):

Massachusetts is not even remotely close to the number of electric vehicles on its roads needed to meet climate goals, but a top Baker administration official said Thursday she intends to "fight" for funding in a new bill to expand charging options and other needed infrastructure.

Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides joined Gov. Charlie Baker on Thursday to help roll out a $9.7 billion multi-year borrowing bill for transportation infrastructure that she said includes money for charging infrastructure, helping companies transition fleets to electric vehicles, school bus electrification and more....

With around 36,000 electric vehicles on the road in Massachusetts, the proliferation of these zero-emission cars and trucks significantly trails the 1 million vehicle benchmark officials have used as necessary to reduce carbon emissions by 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2030....

Massachusetts will require that all new passenger vehicles sold beginning in 2035 be zero-emission vehicles, in line with standards being finalized by California and in keeping with the Massachusetts Clean Air Act to follow the Golden State's emission standards....

One of her biggest regrets, she said, was not being able to bring the regional Transportation Climate Initiative to fruition. Theoharides called it "disappointing" that the multi-state collaborative to reduce carbon emissions from transportation fell apart, which she attributed in large part to COVID-19 and the influx of federal relief dollars that made the revenue possible from TCI less attractive to state leaders.

Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides regrets that the last "boondoggle" she and Gov. Baker spearheaded was rejected by the 14 Northeast and mid-Atlantic states recruited to join their multi-state Transportation and Climate Initiative "compact" that would have imposed a universal gas and diesel tax hike by invisible bureaucrats.  Their backup plan is to take the same route with different mandates imposed by other nameless bureaucrats, dictated by the governor of distant California — and throw even more huge amounts of money extracted from its targeted victims at it.

They intend to use our money to crush us.  Incredible, and audacious.


Last Wednesday the State House News Service reported ("Inflation Blunts Impact of School Aid Increases in Baker’s Budget"):

More than 40 percent of the state's school districts would receive the smallest possible bump in funding under the governor's budget plan, and administration officials and lawmakers alike agreed Tuesday that the minimum aid increase is not really much of an increase thanks to the high rate of inflation.

Of the state's 318 operating school districts, 135 would get minimum aid funding increases of $30 per student, which the Massachusetts Municipal Association and Rep. Natalie Blais said would represent "below-inflation aid increases of approximately 1 percent" for districts that would not otherwise see their aid amount increase under the state's funding formulas.

"Those districts would struggle mightily just to maintain existing programs and services. We don't think they would be able to do so at all," Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, told the Joint Ways and Means Committee during a hearing on the education and local aid portions of Gov. Charlie Baker's $48.5 billion fiscal 2023 budget plan....

[Rep. Natalie] Blais said she thought that "there must be other things, other ways, that you can consider to help address this issue for these communities," but [Education Secretary James] Peyser suggested that there really is not much more the administration could do and said the minimum increases would seem more generous if it were not for the high rates of inflation that have plagued the country since last year.

"Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to that question, in part because, as with many things as this committee understands, it comes down to money as well and then choices that are made," Peyser said. "But one thing I just note in particular that is particularly challenging this year is the high level of inflation, which means that normal efforts like minimum aid -- you know, $30 for minimum aid or $50 or whatever it might be -- don't quite seem as large as they would in a low-inflation environment. So there's definitely something unique about this particular year given the level of inflation."

The Massachusetts Municipal Association — the lobbying organization for city and town governments — is doing what it always does, sometime righteously other times self-servingly, what all special interest groups dependent of government largesse do.  It's lobbying for more money from the state's bounty.  In a way that's understandable.  Everyone wants more money especially if it's "free" for the asking.

The thing is, inflation — created by the government printing and spending too much phony money — affects everyone, including local government budgets.  Why do they feel somehow entitled to escape inflation's unavoidable pain — "the cruelest tax of all" — while the rest of us must suffer silently and bear it?

But the audacity gets even more stunning.

The State House News Service reported on the day before, on Tuesday ("Mass. Schools Sitting on $2 Billion in Unspent Federal Aid"):

Of roughly $2.6 billion in federal pandemic relief money that has been set aside for Massachusetts school districts, only about $431 million has been "claimed" and spent by school systems, a figure that Sen. Jason Lewis on Tuesday called "concerning."

The accounting of remaining federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) money came during a Joint Ways and Means Committee hearing Tuesday on Gov. Charlie Baker's $48.5 billion fiscal 2023 state budget, which calls for $5.989 billion in Chapter 70 aid to local schools. Some lawmakers and advocates have called for greater investments in education.

"Just to note, again, in total, Massachusetts schools districts have received $2.6 billion in federal pandemic relief funding ... As of the end of February, people may be surprised to learn, that only $431 million of that has actually been claimed by school districts and presumably spent. So that's 17 percent. So 17 percent has been spent as of the end of last month, so there's a lot of money -- over $2 billion -- that's still available," Lewis said during the hours-long hearing....

Lewis noted that districts have three more school years to spend money from the third and final round of ESSER. He also asked Education Secretary James Peyser and Elementary and Secondary Education Commissioner Jeff Riley how the state could "support and encourage our districts to use these resources."

"We have been very clear with the districts that they have to use this money, it is time-bound. I worry that some of them thought there might be an extension from the federal government on how to use the money. And while I don't think that would be a bad thing to have a several-year extension, I'm not sure it's coming," Riley said.

Does anyone still wonder why we continue to assert "More Is Never Enough" (MINE) and never will be until they have it all?


A Boston Herald editorial on Friday ("Despite inflation, Dems keep on spending") put into perspective the cause for all the inflation angst and pain the reason for Mass. Municipal Association's above concern:

Democrats have been playing keep-away with inflation blame ever since costs started spiking following the party’s spending spree on Capitol Hill.

First, inflation was “transitory,” until Fed Chair Jerome Powell admitted that was the wrong call. Then fingers pointed back to the left’s favorite villain, big business, raising prices simply because they could. Again, no dice.

We were warned. Larry Summers, who was Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, wrote in The Washington Post in February of last year that Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan could “set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.”

And John Cochrane of the Hoover Institution notes in The Wall Street Journal that spending on COVID “stimulus” in 2020 and 2021 exploded federal debt nearly 30%. “Is it at all a surprise,” he asks, “that a year later inflation breaks out?”

It isn’t, even if the powers that be in D.C. are determined to pass the buck, even while wages fail to buy as much food and goods as they used to and gas price continue to spike.

That’s no crust off their ciabatta.

But perhaps this will make them take notice, if only for the effect it may have on midterm elections.

The same inflation that’s taking a bite out of the family budget is also eating into funding for schools and social programs.

We’re seeing that in Massachusetts, as the State House News Service reported this week that more than 40% of the state’s school districts would receive the smallest possible bump in funding under Gov. Charlie Baker’s budget plan. Administration officials and lawmakers agreed that the minimum aid increase is not really much of one thanks to the high rate of inflation....

And still they spend on Capitol Hill....

If the Democratic Party is looking for a new motto, may we suggest: Why learn from your mistakes when you can double down?


The State House News Service on Thursday reported ("Senate Priorities Align With House In $1.6 Bil Budget"):

The Massachusetts Senate plans next Thursday to consider a roughly $1.6 billion supplemental spending bill that largely mirrors the version that the House unanimously passed last week.

The Senate Ways and Means Committee released its redrafted version (S 2776) of the mid-year spending plan Thursday, proposing $1.64 billion in spending at a net cost of $850.1 million to the state. The Senate put the bill on its agenda for Thursday, March 24 and adopted an order giving senators until 3 p.m. Monday to file amendments.

Though the Senate version's bottom line appears slightly larger than what representatives adopted on March 9 (H 4578), the two bills are largely aligned....

After posting a surplus of about $5 billion in fiscal year 2021, state tax revenue has continued its trend of strong growth throughout fiscal 2022. Collections for the current fiscal year were outpacing revenue projections by more than $1 billion through February, even after the Baker administration upgraded estimates by $1.5 billion.

"If we got it, spend it!" is the Bacon Hill mantra and boy do they "got it" these days.

Bear in mind that on July 16, 2021 Gov. Baker signed this year's annual fiscal budget of $47.6 Billion.  With just three months to go in the remainder of this fiscal year Beacon Hill is adding on another $1.6 Billion in "supplemental" (additional) spending, bring the total spending for FY2022 to over $50 Billion.  (How many earlier "supplemental" bills have passed since July is anyone's guess, but here's one from December 13 that added $1.45 Billion from the state's revenue "surplus.")

For perspective, on January 26, Gov. Baker filed his fiscal year 2023 budget, which begins on July 1, for $48.5 Billion. (This was accompanied by legislation proposing tax breaks for renters, seniors, parents and low-income workers, and changes to how Massachusetts handles estate and capital gains taxes.)  Beacon Hill soon will exceeded that $48.5 Billion amount already in this fiscal year by over $1.5 Billion and still not a word on any tax relief for those who pay for every cent of state revenue surplus.

In its Weekly Roundup - Growing Could-Do List on Friday the News Service reported:

. . . Another of Baker's proposals, one to provide $700 million worth of tax relief to residents, already appears dead in the water. Beacon Hill Democrats say they are interested in pursuing some kind of tax relief before they are all up for reelection this fall, but the most detailed plans so far have come from Republicans.

"I don't have anything right off the top of my head, but we've been looking at these things even before the governor presented his tax package, so we are going to take a look at a number of different things," Mariano said Monday, adding that the House is exploring "more broad-based" options than what Baker offered.

The next day, House and Senate Republicans filed a trio of bills meant to relieve pressure on drivers by offering tax credits to commuters, creating new electric vehicle rebates, and suspending the state's gas tax for the next six months -- an idea that has no support from legislative leaders or the governor.

"Beacon Hill Democrats say they are interested in pursuing some kind of tax relief before they are all up for reelection this fall."

In the CLT Update of March 7 ("Revenue Windfall Rolls On, But No Tax Relief In Sight") I wrote:

What is the holdup here, the excuse now?  Billions in over-taxation has been piling up in the state's coffers faster than can be counted but a relatively small tax relief proposal by Gov. Baker is stalled in the Legislature until — May, maybe, if ever?  Legislators really are repelled by the thought of possibly returning even a cent of the revenue bonanza to its rightful owners — the taxpayers who provide it all.

John Fogarty of Creedence Clearwater Revival fame must have had the Massachusetts Legislature and tax relief in mind when he sang Someday Never Comes.


I'll let my following response to Beacon Hill Roll Call this week ("Pay Fine for Not Voting (H 788)") speak for itself.

PAY FINE FOR NOT VOTING (H 788) - Would require eligible voters to cast a ballot in every November general election or face a fine of $15 that would be added to the person’s state tax liability for each election missed. The measure also clarifies that the voter does not have to actually vote for anyone and is allowed to leave the ballot blank....

“Freedom of religion means government cannot restrict the practice of any faith – nor the lack of it,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “Freedom of speech prohibits government from regulating speech – or requiring it. In the same fashion, a citizen’s sacred right to vote should not and does not give government the power to mandate its exercise. This frivolous proposed mandate once again demonstrates that ‘fulltime’ Massachusetts legislators have far too much idle time on their hands.”


Boston Herald veteran reporter and columnist Peter Lucas had a good take on the Massachusetts GOP in his Saturday column ("Progressives prefer a charging RINO in the governor’s office — tough luck"):

Democrats — and by extension progressives and left-wing editorial writers — love to shed crocodile tears over the “death” of the Massachusetts Republican Party now that Gov. Charlie Baker is not seeking reelection.

But what they’re really sad about is the rise of the conservative wing of the party that is now in charge after routing Baker, the liberals and moderates of the GOP that have run things for years.

Under Baker and his GOP mentors, the Republican Party in Massachusetts functioned like a sub-committee of the Democratic Party....

Baker and the RINOs are on the run.

Donald Trump has more influence over Republicans in Massachusetts today than Baker does, a development that played a role in his decision not to seek a third term as governor....

And to those who say that national politicians will not have much to do with state issues, just look at gas prices, let alone the supermarket.

Pocketbook issues make all politics local.

I just wish the small band of Republicans left standing in Massachusetts had more influence on the overall electorate and could provide at least hope that politics on Beacon Hill had a possibility to change for the better.  Alas, if that is to ever happen it likely won't be any time soon.

Chip Ford
Executive Director


Full News Reports
(excerpted above)

Beacon Hill Roll Call
Volume 47 - Report No. 11
March 14-18, 2022
By Bob Katzen


PAY FINE FOR NOT VOTING (H 788) - Would require eligible voters to cast a ballot in every November general election or face a fine of $15 that would be added to the person’s state tax liability for each election missed. The measure also clarifies that the voter does not have to actually vote for anyone and is allowed to leave the ballot blank.

“There are two schools of thought when filing legislation,” said the bill’s sponsor Rep. Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth). “One is filing a bill that is rigorously vetted, that has been combed line by line and that you hope only receives marginal edits through the committee process. The other is filing an idea that you believe is worthy of a robust public debate that will reshape the bill. Although it won’t pass this session and may never pass at all, I believe mandatory voting is an idea worth debate and consideration at the Statehouse and by thoughtful citizens across the state because it drives at questions fundamental to our society, which is whether civic participation in democracy is a duty or a right. I filed this bill to spark that debate.”

“Freedom of religion means government cannot restrict the practice of any faith – nor the lack of it,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “Freedom of speech prohibits government from regulating speech – or requiring it. In the same fashion, a citizen’s sacred right to vote should not and does not give government the power to mandate its exercise. This frivolous proposed mandate once again demonstrates that ‘fulltime’ Massachusetts legislators have far too much idle time on their hands.”

“Rep. Fernandes’ bill is a dangerous idea,” said Paul Craney, a spokesman for the Mass Fiscal Alliance. “The lawmaker wants to fine voters for not voting and we all know that the next step in this progression is to fine voters for voting the wrong way. Rep. Fernandes should spend his time more focused on what ordinary people care [about] and less time chasing far left driven fantasies.”


The California Examiner
Sunday, March 13, 2022
By 2035, Massachusetts plans to phase out new gasoline-powered automobiles
By Maria Shiela


Following the Biden administration’s restoration of California’s authority to set more stringent vehicle emission standards than federal rules, Massachusetts is poised to follow suit by imposing a 2035 ban on new gasoline-powered vehicles, potentially setting the stage for the next major fight over how to meet state climate goals.

Massachusetts is one of sixteen states bound by California’s automobile emission standards, a policy implemented in 1991 under the Massachusetts Clean Air Act that assures the state has some of the strictest anti-pollution measures for new cars trucks.

Governor Gavin Newsom of California signed an executive order in 2020 requiring state regulators to compel the sale of solely zero-emission automobiles by 2035, and [Gov.] Baker included the idea in his December 2020 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap.

“As a result, the promise by the state of Massachusetts to phase out internal combustion engines by 2035 is one to which we are committed,” Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides stated last month at a Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change hearing.

A combination of free-market think tanks is now challenging this position and advocacy groups led locally by the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. They believe the state should decouple from California.

“For us in Massachusetts, MassFiscal and Citizens for Limited Taxation are going to fight tooth and nail to ensure that motorists have options and that the free market, not the governor of California, determines what people want,” Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul Craney said.

Craney organized a conference call Thursday with groups representing the six New England states, excluding New Hampshire, that have laws tying their vehicle emission standards to California, describing it as the next major battleground following the success of many of the same groups in opposing the now-defunct regional Transportation Climate Initiative.

TCI would have aimed to cut carbon emissions from automobiles and trucks by imposing a falling emission cap on member states.

The new alliance, which includes 29 organizations from 15 of the 16 states that share a border with California, aims to educate the public, the media, and politicians on what will happen in a little more than a decade.

“Citizens oppose autopilot legislation,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, adding, “We’re trying to restore accountability to any of these laws, particularly something as drastic as this, which would prohibit internal combustion engines.”

Requests for feedback from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs were not responded to.

The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 obliged states to conform to federal automobile emission requirements. Still, it allowed California to establish its laws to combat smog as long as they were more strict than the federal ones. Other states were permitted to join either the federal regulations or the California rules.

While President Donald Trump revoked the waiver allowing California to set its regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency reinstated that authority on Wednesday, along with the states’ rights to follow California’s example on tailpipe emissions regulation.

According to Nick Murray of the Maine Policy Institute, following California’s lead will impose a “significant economic burden on low- and middle-income Mainers.”

He also questioned if New England’s electric grid could manage the demand associated with a complete transition to electric vehicles by 2035.

“It is just not practicable to adhere to California laws,” Murray stated.

Meg Hansen, head of the Vermont-based Ethan Allen Institute, predicted that a ban on gasoline-powered automobiles would fail in rural areas like hers, where public transportation is unavailable, and zero-emission technology is “neither inexpensive nor easily available.”

“Vermont is not a California colony,” Hansen stated. “For Vermont politicians to transfer regulatory control over our standards to another state is anti-democratic and foolish.”

Christian Herb, president of the Connecticut Energy Marketers Association, stated that the California Air Resources Board had initiated the regulatory procedure necessary to execute Newsom’s executive order, and opponents such as his organization intend to participate.

Recently, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued emergency regulations in January requiring the state to immediately adopt California’s Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) policy, which requires an increasing percentage of trucks sold between model years 2025 and 2035 to be zero-emission vehicles.

According to the Baker administration, to achieve a 45 percent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2030, the state would need approximately 1 million of the 5.5 million passenger vehicles projected to be registered in the commonwealth to be zero-emission vehicles, a significant increase from the roughly 36,000 on the road in January 2021.


State House News Service
Thursday, March 17, 2022
Mass. Shift To Electric Vehicles Lacks Charge
Theoharides Hopes $9.7 Bil Bill Will Create More Traction
By Matt Murphy


Massachusetts is not even remotely close to the number of electric vehicles on its roads needed to meet climate goals, but a top Baker administration official said Thursday she intends to "fight" for funding in a new bill to expand charging options and other needed infrastructure.

Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides joined Gov. Charlie Baker on Thursday to help roll out a $9.7 billion multi-year borrowing bill for transportation infrastructure that she said includes money for charging infrastructure, helping companies transition fleets to electric vehicles, school bus electrification and more.

She later joined the The Nature Conservancy for an hour-long lookback at her years as secretary in the Baker administration where she said public investment and advances in the private market should help bend the curve of electric vehicle sales upward.

With around 36,000 electric vehicles on the road in Massachusetts, the proliferation of these zero-emission cars and trucks significantly trails the 1 million vehicle benchmark officials have used as necessary to reduce carbon emissions by 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

"We absolutely believe that the pandemic had influence on this although we were already behind," Theoharides told The Nature Conservancy Vice President Deb Markowitz.

Massachusetts will require that all new passenger vehicles sold beginning in 2035 be zero-emission vehicles, in line with standards being finalized by California and in keeping with the Massachusetts Clean Air Act to follow the Golden State's emission standards.

While electric vehicle sales have slowed due to price and other factors, Theoharides said the car industry has responded by giving consumers increased choice with offerings like electric pickup trucks from Ford and larger SUVs for families from other manufacturers.

"Consumer choice is going through the roof," she said. "We think the market is moving in a much easier direction. Battery life is also going up significantly."

To address "range anxiety" concerns that make drivers nervous about running out of charge on longer trips, Theoharides said the state is looking at ways to expand charging capacity to city streets and parking garages.

"We think the curve is one of those typical clean energy curves that starts off slow and then goes up, but we have our work cut out for us to make sure it does go up," she said.

With The Nature Conservancy, Theoharides discussed her career evolution, how the COVID-19 pandemic forced her to focus on unexpected things like maintaining safe access to parks, and the importance of finding dedicated funding for climate resiliency.

One of her biggest regrets, she said, was not being able to bring the regional Transportation Climate Initiative to fruition. Theoharides called it "disappointing" that the multi-state collaborative to reduce carbon emissions from transportation fell apart, which she attributed in large part to COVID-19 and the influx of federal relief dollars that made the revenue possible from TCI less attractive to state leaders.

"You can't make a political leader do something they don't have the confidence to do," Theoharides said.

Opponents of the regional compact said states were not eager to sign on because of the likelihood that it would drive up gas prices.


The Boston Herald
Friday, March 11, 2022
Massachusetts think tank alleges
millionaire’s tax ballot question is misleading
By Amy Sokolow


The Pioneer Institute has both participated in a lawsuit and released a white paper alleging that a 2022 ballot question to tax the state’s millionaires is misleading voters.

The ballot question at hand, pertaining to the “millionaire’s tax” or the “Fair Share amendment,” would amend the state constitution to add a tax of 4% on annual incomes over $1 million in a given year. The funding raised would be earmarked for education and transportation spending.

Greg Sullivan, the author of Pioneer’s paper, argued that the question’s framing is misleading.

“The Supreme Court has already determined that the money doesn’t have to be spent for additional education and transportation funding, that it can be used to replace current funding, and then they take that funding and use it wherever they want,” he said, arguing that the language on the ballot question’s explanation should be clarified to reflect that.

A similar issue arose during debates of an earlier version of the ballot question, when House minority leader Brad Jones, R-North Reading, tried to add an amendment that would have guaranteed that the funds would be additive, rather than replacing funding from other sources, which failed.

At the time, Jones called the question as-is a “bait and switch.”

“Part of the reason we need to do this is because our track record as legislators in respecting the will of the voters on tax matters is not particularly good,” Jones said.

At the heart of the matter, Sullivan said, is a separate legal challenge to a nearly identical ballot question proposal that never made it to the ballot. In 2018, Attorney General Maura Healey said in a brief that “(b)ecause the proposed amendment does not require otherwise, the Legislature could choose to reduce funding in specified budget categories from other sources and replace it with the new surtax revenue.”

Proponents of the 2022 ballot question disputed Sullivan’s findings.

“Though this tax would only apply to around 0.6 percent of Massachusetts households in any given year, it could raise a meaningful amount of money, as those few households account for more than one-fifth of all taxable income in the state,” the Tufts State Center for Policy Analysis notes on its website.

Marie-Frances Rivera, president of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, noted that the gas tax revenue amendment to the constitution successfully earmarked funds for transportation.

“It provides a really strong legal basis for bringing a lawsuit if that money isn’t spent on education and transportation,” she added.

“The Millionaires Tax will dedicate over a billion dollars a year to education and transportation in the strongest possible way — by amending the Massachusetts Constitution,” a Raise Up Coalition spokesperson said.


Newburyport Daily News
Wednesday, March 16, 2022
Report: 'Millionaires tax' a 'blank check' for Beacon Hill
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse Reporter


A proposed surtax on the state’s top earners would essentially be a “blank check” for Beacon Hill budget writers, who could divert the money for purposes other than education and transportation, according to new report.

The report, released by the Pioneer Institute, argues that despite claims by proponents that the proceeds from the “millionaires tax” would be dedicated for schools and transportation spending, the revenue will be “fungible.”

“If the initiative is adopted, legislators could circumvent its stated intent yet still be in compliance with it,” said Greg Sullivan, a senior analyst at Pioneer and author of the report. “They can simply reduce spending on education and transportation from other revenue sources and replace it with surtax money.”

Sullivan pointed to the state’s use of revenue from the 1998 tobacco settlement, which was intended to provide additional funding for anti-smoking campaigns but like tobacco taxes is frequently diverted by lawmakers for other budget spending.

He also cited a 2012 California law that increased the state’s income tax on high earners to provide additional funding for education. A majority of that money was diverted to other projects and initiatives, according to the Pioneer report.

The report comes as the state Supreme Judicial Court weighs a legal challenge by pro-business groups over the wording of the “millionaires tax” referendum.

A complaint filed by the Massachusetts High Technology Council and other groups argues that backers of the surtax may try to mislead voters by using an “inaccurate” summary of the referendum that says the money will be devoted solely for education and transportation.

The legal challenge, which is backed by the Pioneer Institute, asks justices to require that any summary of the ballot question for voters include a caveat that the state Legislature “could choose to reduce funding on education and transportation from other sources and replace it with the new surtax revenue because the proposed amendment does not require otherwise.”

The referendum, which was cleared for the November ballot by the Legislature, will ask Massachusetts voters to amend the state constitution to set a 4% surtax on the portion of an individual’s annual income over $1 million.

Estimates provided by groups supporting the proposed Fair Share Amendment say that could drum up more than $2 billion to improve neglected public schools, expand child care options, and fix roads with potholes and crumbling bridges.

But a recent report by Tufts University’s Center for State Policy Analysis suggested revenue generated by the proposed surtax would be much less because some wealthy individuals would leave the state instead of paying it. The report estimated the state would collect $1.3 billion in 2023 from the roughly 26,000 wealthy households.

Opponents argued the measure will hurt businesses, drive away the wealthy, and put a drag on the state’s economy as it recovers from the pandemic.

But supporters say the state’s top earners can afford to dig deeper into their pockets to help fund education and transportation and say polls suggest voters back the proposed surtax.

The Raise Up Massachusetts coalition, which is behind the referendum, dismissed the Pioneer’s report as “nothing more than a silly attempt to grab a headline.”

“The millionaires tax will dedicate over a billion dollars a year to education and transportation in the strongest possible way — by amending the Massachusetts constitution,” the coalition of labor unions, community and faith groups said in a statement. “Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly support this question and will have the opportunity in November to make our state’s tax structure more equitable for working families by requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share.”

Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites.


State House News Service
Tuesday, March 15, 2022
Mass. Schools Sitting on $2 Billion in Unspent Federal Aid
By Colin A. Young


Of roughly $2.6 billion in federal pandemic relief money that has been set aside for Massachusetts school districts, only about $431 million has been "claimed" and spent by school systems, a figure that Sen. Jason Lewis on Tuesday called "concerning."

The accounting of remaining federal Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) money came during a Joint Ways and Means Committee hearing Tuesday on Gov. Charlie Baker's $48.5 billion fiscal 2023 state budget, which calls for $5.989 billion in Chapter 70 aid to local schools. Some lawmakers and advocates have called for greater investments in education.

"Just to note, again, in total, Massachusetts schools districts have received $2.6 billion in federal pandemic relief funding ... As of the end of February, people may be surprised to learn, that only $431 million of that has actually been claimed by school districts and presumably spent. So that's 17 percent. So 17 percent has been spent as of the end of last month, so there's a lot of money -- over $2 billion -- that's still available," Lewis said during the hours-long hearing. "I think somewhat surprising and concerning that we aren't seeing our districts utilize more of those funds for the urgent recovery needs that we've all recognized in the course of the last hour and a half -- academic learning loss, literacy, social, emotional and mental health needs, many interventions for students who are disadvantaged and struggling."

Lewis noted that districts have three more school years to spend money from the third and final round of ESSER. He also asked Education Secretary James Peyser and Elementary and Secondary Education Commissioner Jeff Riley how the state could "support and encourage our districts to use these resources."

"We have been very clear with the districts that they have to use this money, it is time-bound. I worry that some of them thought there might be an extension from the federal government on how to use the money. And while I don't think that would be a bad thing to have a several-year extension, I'm not sure it's coming," Riley said. "I had an opportunity to meet with [U.S. Education] Secretary [Miguel] Cardona, and he was pretty clear that he thought that the deadlines were going to hold."


State House News Service
Wednesday, March 16, 2022
Inflation Blunts Impact of School Aid Increases in Baker’s Budget
135 Districts In Line to Receive Minimum Funding Boost
By Colin A. Young


More than 40 percent of the state's school districts would receive the smallest possible bump in funding under the governor's budget plan, and administration officials and lawmakers alike agreed Tuesday that the minimum aid increase is not really much of an increase thanks to the high rate of inflation.

Of the state's 318 operating school districts, 135 would get minimum aid funding increases of $30 per student, which the Massachusetts Municipal Association and Rep. Natalie Blais said would represent "below-inflation aid increases of approximately 1 percent" for districts that would not otherwise see their aid amount increase under the state's funding formulas.

"Those districts would struggle mightily just to maintain existing programs and services. We don't think they would be able to do so at all," Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, told the Joint Ways and Means Committee during a hearing on the education and local aid portions of Gov. Charlie Baker's $48.5 billion fiscal 2023 budget plan.

Beckwith said the governor's budget proposal would provide the 135 "minimum aid" districts with a combined increase of $9.3 million, while the remaining districts would receive about $475 million collectively. The MMA has called on the Legislature to increase the per-student minimum aid amount from $30 to $100 to provide greater resources to those districts.

"Otherwise, some communities will go forward but many school districts will see their programs go backwards," Beckwith said. He added, "It doesn't require a formula change. It just requires a minimum amount of $100 a student that would cost collectively about $23 million, according to the most recent numbers put out by [the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education]."

During Tuesday's hearing, Blais raised the issue of minimum aid with Education Secretary James Peyser and DESE Commissioner Jeff Riley.

"For communities like mine in the First Franklin District, where school budgets can account for 60 percent or more of a town's budget, this can be really devastating," Blais, who represents 19 communities just north of Amherst and west of the Quabbin Reservoir, said. "So I'm just wondering what consideration was given to addressing this issue for these districts."

Riley said that DESE has "a history" of looking at districts that don't benefit as much as others under state formulas and supplementing their aid. But he asked DESE Chief Financial Officer Bill Bell to answer in more detail.

"As a general statement, I would say we're well aware of how the formula does not, I guess I will say, equally benefit all districts in the commonwealth," Bell said. "We're certainly aware of the effects in rural school districts, primarily with the formula being driven by headcount and the ability to pay for that headcount ... We do have the rural aid program that's somewhat of a stopgap."

Blais said she thought that "there must be other things, other ways, that you can consider to help address this issue for these communities," but Peyser suggested that there really is not much more the administration could do and said the minimum increases would seem more generous if it were not for the high rates of inflation that have plagued the country since last year.

"Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to that question, in part because, as with many things as this committee understands, it comes down to money as well and then choices that are made," the education secretary said. "But one thing I just note in particular that is particularly challenging this year is the high level of inflation, which means that normal efforts like minimum aid -- you know, $30 for minimum aid or $50 or whatever it might be -- don't quite seem as large as they would in a low-inflation environment. So there's definitely something unique about this particular year given the level of inflation."

Blais said she agreed but was disappointed that the administration did not consider the high level of inflation and what it would mean for district aid allotments before filing its budget proposal.

"I guess I just would have hoped that that would have been recognized and somehow addressed in the budget proposal from the governor," she said.


The Boston Herald
Friday, March 18, 2022
A Boston Herald editorial
Despite inflation, Dems keep on spending


Democrats have been playing keep-away with inflation blame ever since costs started spiking following the party’s spending spree on Capitol Hill.

First, inflation was “transitory,” until Fed Chair Jerome Powell admitted that was the wrong call. Then fingers pointed back to the left’s favorite villain, big business, raising prices simply because they could. Again, no dice.

We were warned. Larry Summers, who was Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, wrote in The Washington Post in February of last year that Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan could “set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.”

And John Cochrane of the Hoover Institution notes in The Wall Street Journal that spending on COVID “stimulus” in 2020 and 2021 exploded federal debt nearly 30%. “Is it at all a surprise,” he asks, “that a year later inflation breaks out?”

It isn’t, even if the powers that be in D.C. are determined to pass the buck, even while wages fail to buy as much food and goods as they used to and gas price continue to spike.

That’s no crust off their ciabatta.

But perhaps this will make them take notice, if only for the effect it may have on midterm elections.

The same inflation that’s taking a bite out of the family budget is also eating into funding for schools and social programs.

We’re seeing that in Massachusetts, as the State House News Service reported this week that more than 40% of the state’s school districts would receive the smallest possible bump in funding under Gov. Charlie Baker’s budget plan. Administration officials and lawmakers agreed that the minimum aid increase is not really much of one thanks to the high rate of inflation.

“Those districts would struggle mightily just to maintain existing programs and services. We don’t think they would be able to do so at all,” Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, told the Joint Ways and Means Committee during a hearing on the education and local aid portions of Gov. Charlie Baker’s $48.5 billion fiscal 2023 budget plan.

This has to be happening across the country — money just isn’t going as far as it used to.

And still they spend on Capitol Hill.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Thursday said she’s advised the Biden administration to seek tens of billions of dollars more in emergency COVID-19 relief, suggesting it will take more than $40 billion to meet the testing, vaccine and therapeutic needs of the U.S. and the larger global community, The Hill reported.

The same pandemic that is approaching the endemic stage.

President Biden had initially asked Congress for $22.5 billion in new funding.

We guess that when you’re used to asking for trillions, $40 billion seems like a trifle.

Meanwhile, calls continue for Biden to cancel student loan debt. He’s paused payments during the pandemic, but has said he’s open to knocking off $10,000 in student debt per borrower.

Adam Looney, a fellow at Brookings Institution and executive director of the Marriner S. Eccles Institute at the University of Utah, analyzed data from the Department of Education and told The Hill that forgiving all outstanding federal student loans would cost $1.6 trillion.

If the Democratic Party is looking for a new motto, may we suggest: Why learn from your mistakes when you can double down?


State House News Service
Thursday, March 17, 2022
Senate Priorities Align With House In $1.6 Bil Budget
Amendments Due Monday, Debate Planned Next Thursday
By Colin A. Young


The Massachusetts Senate plans next Thursday to consider a roughly $1.6 billion supplemental spending bill that largely mirrors the version that the House unanimously passed last week.

The Senate Ways and Means Committee released its redrafted version (S 2776) of the mid-year spending plan Thursday, proposing $1.64 billion in spending at a net cost of $850.1 million to the state. The Senate put the bill on its agenda for Thursday, March 24 and adopted an order giving senators until 3 p.m. Monday to file amendments.

Though the Senate version's bottom line appears slightly larger than what representatives adopted on March 9 (H 4578), the two bills are largely aligned.

Like the House bill, the Senate's supplemental budget includes the $700 million requested by Gov. Charlie Baker for COVID-19 pandemic-related expenses -- including $433 million for COVID testing, $72 million for treatments, $45.5 million for expanded vaccination access and more.

Both bills also call for $100 million to repair local roads damaged this winter, $100 million in rental assistance, $55 million for rate increases for human service providers, $10 million to support the resettlement of Ukrainian refugees and $140 million to support staffing and program needs at private special education schools.

And like the House, Senate Democrats did not include two key proposals that Baker made when he filed a $2.4 billion supplemental budget in February -- a request for $450 million to extend stabilization grants for child care providers through next fiscal year and a proposal to put $50 million into the recruitment, training and salaries of guardians ad litem within the court system.

The Senate appears to have diverged from the House when it comes to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The House included $5 million for LIHEAP in its bill and the Senate draft calls for $20 million for the program that helps low-income seniors, working families and other households pay a portion of winter heating bills.

The Senate draft also includes $10 million for Emergency Aid to the Elderly, Disabled and Children (EAEDC), $10 million for staffing and other resources at suicide prevention and intervention services, $8.4 million for Department of Children and Families foster family rates, $1.8 million for mental health services for international evacuees resettled in Massachusetts, $1.7 million for state park investments, including water safety initiatives, $500,000 to expand the capacity of the Commission on the Status of Women, and $609,000 for additional staffing to implement the 2021 climate roadmap law, according to a Senate Ways and Means Committee summary.

Outdoor dining and to-go alcoholic beverages appear to be here to stay at least until April 1, 2023, as the Senate supp mirrors the House version in extending the popular pandemic-era policies that otherwise are due to expire this spring.

Retirees from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the Massachusetts Port Authority or the MBTA would have to wait only 6 months instead of one year before being reemployed by the agency or authority under a provision included in the House and Senate versions. The T dealt with a serious shortage of bus drivers this winter and Rep. William Straus suggested that the agency consider bringing back recent retirees who still have commercial driver's licenses.

Fourteen members of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, including Republican Sen. Patrick O'Connor, voted in favor of recommending the new draft. The Senate's two other Republican members, Sens. Bruce Tarr and Ryan Fattman, opted to reserve their rights and did not weigh in favorably or unfavorably. Sen. Paul Feeney did not respond to the committee's poll.

After posting a surplus of about $5 billion in fiscal year 2021, state tax revenue has continued its trend of strong growth throughout fiscal 2022. Collections for the current fiscal year were outpacing revenue projections by more than $1 billion through February, even after the Baker administration upgraded estimates by $1.5 billion.


State House News Service
Friday, March 18, 2022
Weekly Roundup - Growing Could-Do List
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Colin A. Young


It could be one helluva July on Beacon Hill.

True to his pledge not to become a lame-duck governor in his final year in office, Gov. Charlie Baker this week lobbed two significant pieces of legislation into the fray for consideration before the Legislature more or less shuts down after July 31 for campaign season.

If you're keeping track at home, the governor's new health care bill and his transportation investment plan join a legislative could-do list that already includes the fiscal year 2023 state budget (that one's really a must-do), a supplemental fiscal 2022 budget that includes loads of COVID response funding, the annual Chapter 90 bill to pay for local road projects and repairs, a Senate climate bill that could cover some of the same ground as the House-approved offshore wind bill, legislation to open up access to driver's licenses for immigrants without legal status in the country (already passed in the House), and more.

Senate leaders have suggested they'll take up a child care bill this spring, and House leaders say they want to tackle legislation addressing the sharing of sexually explicit images. Oh, and lawmakers still need to put the finishing touches on a plan to improve oversight and accountability at two state-run veterans' homes, and legislation that would enact major changes for this year's elections.

House Speaker Ron Mariano also wants to see the Senate finally take up sports betting and act on the House's bill to put new checks on some hospital expansions while Senate President Karen Spilka is eager for the House to consider bills passed by her chamber to expand access to mental health and lower prescription drug costs. And it's been something of a custom for lawmakers to pass a massive economic development bill at the end of each session.

In other words, there's a lot to do in the next four-plus months.

Baker this week added to the pile a health care bill that would force providers and insurers to boost spending on primary and behavioral health care by as much as $1.4 billion over the next three years, a proposal that mirrors one he made before the pandemic rearranged Beacon Hill's priorities. Lawmakers have chipped away at some health care-related issues this session and seem prepared to take another run at more wide-reaching reforms. But whether they adopt some of Baker's ideas or go their own route remains to be seen.

The Democrats who hold supermajorities in the House and Senate will probably be more receptive to the $9.7 billion transportation bond bill that the Republican governor unveiled Thursday. The Legislature could certainly change Baker's bill to reflect its priorities but it's unlikely that lawmakers will quibble with Baker's aim to maximize the money Massachusetts could receive under the new federal infrastructure law.

"The way this works is the state authorizes, the state moves forward, the state spends, and the federal government reimburses," Baker said in front of I-290 in Worcester. "It's critical for us to get this legislation passed as quickly as we possibly can..."

Another of Baker's proposals, one to provide $700 million worth of tax relief to residents, already appears dead in the water. Beacon Hill Democrats say they are interested in pursuing some kind of tax relief before they are all up for reelection this fall, but the most detailed plans so far have come from Republicans.

"I don't have anything right off the top of my head, but we've been looking at these things even before the governor presented his tax package, so we are going to take a look at a number of different things," Mariano said Monday, adding that the House is exploring "more broad-based" options than what Baker offered.

The next day, House and Senate Republicans filed a trio of bills meant to relieve pressure on drivers by offering tax credits to commuters, creating new electric vehicle rebates, and suspending the state's gas tax for the next six months -- an idea that has no support from legislative leaders or the governor.

"We cannot stand idle while day after day people are facing the economic pain of paying for fuel to get to work, school, and medical appointments," Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr of Gloucester said.

While last week saw Massachusetts gas prices rise to a record high of $4.36 per gallon on average as of March 11, this week saw prices start to drop as demand fell and the price of oil came down, according to AAA. A gallon of gas in Massachusetts was averaging $4.29 as of Friday morning, down seven cents in seven days. A month ago, the average price of gas was about $3.54 a gallon.

"That is another thing that we are looking at: what can we do to continue to decrease our reliance on oil and gas and increase electric vehicles, electric public transportation, electric individual vehicles, so that people do not need to buy gas in the same way," Spilka said this week.

Massachusetts has a long way to go when it comes to increasing electric vehicle take-up. The Bay State was already behind on EV adoption before the pandemic and now is even further behind the 1 million vehicle benchmark Baker administration officials have said will be necessary to hit the state's 2030 emissions reduction commitment.

The 36,000 electric vehicles on Massachusetts roads right now represent 3.6 percent of the state's goal. One thing holding many drivers back from shifting to an EV is the cost. Kelly Blue Book reported that the average transaction price for a new car topped $46,000 in October but that the average EV cost was above $56,000 before rebates. KBB said 51 percent of car shoppers surveyed said EVs were too expensive to seriously consider.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Doughty pointed to the price of electric vehicles this week as he took aim at Democrats -- specifically gubernatorial candidate Maura Healey -- for suggesting that the answer to the pain of high gas prices is to buy an electric car.

"Most citizens can't afford to buy an electric car this week," Doughty said outside a Tesla dealership in Dedham. "Even though there are very nice cars like these Teslas behind me, we're just not in a position to afford those."

Whether they're driving a spiffy new Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck or a gas-guzzling Cadillac Escalade, Bay State drivers have more company (or competition, depending on what type of driver you are) on the roads these days.

"A lot of that red is creeping back in," Highway Administrator Jonathan Gulliver said Wednesday while presenting color-coded traffic maps to the MassDOT board. "Not quite as bad as where we were back in 2019 pre-pandemic, but getting closer by the week."

There was even a spot of traffic Monday as federal, state and local officials met in Mattapan to cheer the federal government's designation of a 3.7-mile stretch of the Lower Neponset River as a Superfund site. The pols had to pause their remarks about how the Superfund label will advance cleanup efforts to allow a flock of cyclists to cross the bridge being used as the press conference backdrop.

"Next time through, we'll be swimming," one of the riders quipped as he walked his bike by the podium.

STORY OF THE WEEK: With fewer than 300 days left as the state's chief executive, Gov. Baker fleshed out the details of legislation that could round out his legacy after two terms in office.


The Boston Herald
Saturday, March 19, 2022
Progressives prefer a charging RINO in the governor’s office — tough luck
By Peter Lucas


Democrats — and by extension progressives and left-wing editorial writers — love to shed crocodile tears over the “death” of the Massachusetts Republican Party now that Gov. Charlie Baker is not seeking reelection.

But what they’re really sad about is the rise of the conservative wing of the party that is now in charge after routing Baker, the liberals and moderates of the GOP that have run things for years.

Under Baker and his GOP mentors, the Republican Party in Massachusetts functioned like a sub-committee of the Democratic Party.

Republicans like Paul Cellucci, Bill Weld and Charlie Baker could get elected governor in a Democratic state because they were essentially RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Those days are over.

Baker and the RINOs are on the run.

Donald Trump has more influence over Republicans in Massachusetts today than Baker does, a development that played a role in his decision not to seek a third term as governor.

He might have lost the bid.

While still popular among Democrats and Independents, it is questionable whether he would have won the GOP convention endorsement or survived a primary challenge from conservative Geoff Diehl.

Diehl has been endorsed by Trump.

Baker had lost control of the Republican State committee, now headed by former state Rep. Jim Lyons, a strong Trump supporter.

Baker has been a leading critic of fellow Republican Trump and seemed more comfortable in the left lane of American politics. Now it’s payback time, and Baker could read the writing on the wall.

Eight years as governor is a long time, longer than many marriages.

There is little doubt that Trump will run for president in 2024, if he is not unofficially running already. And he and his supporters will receive a tremendous boost following the expected Democrat wipeout in the 2022 Congressional elections.

The worse Joe Biden looks — and he looks pretty bad — the stronger Trump will be, as will the candidates he endorses and campaigns for. Diehl is one of them.

And to those who say that national politicians will not have much to do with state issues, just look at gas prices, let alone the supermarket.

Pocketbook issues make all politics local.

Baker in a recent interview said he believed in a strong two-party system. So, he plans to help moderate candidates, especially Republicans, get elected.

However, he said he had no plans to get involved in the race to succeed him and currently has no intention of supporting moderate Republican businessman Chris Doughty, let alone conservative Diehl.

One thing Baker could have done to shake things up and help elect moderates — but did not — was resign and turn the office over to moderate Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito, his loyal sidekick. There is Republican precedent for such a move.

Like a backup singer to a star vocalist, Polito has been standing 20 feet behind Baker at press conferences for almost eight years, never gaining center stage, let alone stardom.

Had she become acting governor, Polito would have continued Baker’s policies while carving out her own role. This is what the late Paul Cellucci did when Gov. Bill Weld resigned in 1997, making Lt. Gov. Cellucci acting governor.

Cellucci was elected governor in 1998, a position he held until 2001 when he too resigned to become U.S. ambassador to Canada.

Then Lt. Gov. Jane Swift became acting governor. But before she could run for governor in 2002, moneybags Mitt Romney blew her candidacy out of the water before it was even launched.

This is not to say that Polito could have been elected, even running as acting governor. Running as a Charlie Baker RINO, she most likely, like Baker, might not have survived the GOP primary.

Democrats and progressives bemoaning the death of the Republican Party in Massachusetts are talking about the Democrat-Lite Weld/Baker version of the Party. That party is indeed dead.

But the new conservative Trump/Diehl version is alive and kicking. And that, for progressives, is a nightmare.

Peter Lucas is a veteran Massachusetts political reporter and columnist.


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