|
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, 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 |
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 |
|
|
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
|