HOUSE SESSION – WEDNESDAY, NOV. 21,
2001
CONVENES: The House convened at 10:06
am, Speaker Thomas Finneran presiding. Chaplin Quinn offered a prayer and
the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
[...]
RECESSES: The House recessed at 1:01 pm,
intending to return at 1:30 pm.
RETURNS: The House returned at 2:04 pm,
Rep. DiMasi presiding.
QUORUM CALL: A quorum was doubted and
Rep. DiMasi ordered a quorum roll call.
A ROLL CALL INDICATED 156 MEMBERS
PRESENT
[...]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT:
REP. MARZILLI offered an
amendment regarding consideration of the income tax cut on Dec. 5.
REP. MARZILLI said sometimes the
biggest issues come up with obscure parliamentary procedures. The
amendment allows us to take up the issue of the income tax reduction that
takes effect Jan. 1. The amendment does not require us to do so. It would
be up to the speaker to determine what if any tax-related issue would go
on the calendar. That’s the technical part.
But this is really about whether we are
satisfied that the budget reflects the values of each of us and the
people. A straight delay for a year means retaining $205 million this
year, $420 million in the next fiscal year.
We have $650 million in cuts in this
budget and will have about the same in next year’s budget. I don’t
value those cuts. We have a moral, political and social obligation to
provide funds for schools and public safety, and to care for people who
are mentally ill and retarded and for no fault of their own are going to
be denied services this year and next year.
You will hear we are forced to make cuts
by economic conditions. We are only forced to make cuts if we choose not
to delay the income tax cut. I know it’s a tough vote for some of you to
allow us to even consider this Dec. 5.
We will be in twice a week through
November and December. All this allows is for us to take up an issue with
a roll call vote in a formal session. It doesn’t mean we’re going to
do huge amounts of new business. The new business will continue
regardless.
You will hear that if the governor
vetoes, we gain nothing and have to come back in January. There’s the
question of who will act first between the House and Senate. We were
elected to lead. We should.
A tax change must be initiated in this
chamber. I am prepared to vote for cuts and am not suggesting we vote for
taxes now. I am talking about next year’s cuts of a half a billion on
top of this. We can at least mitigate $400 million in cuts.
Rep. Marzilli asked for a roll call and
there was support.
REP. FAGAN said the realities of
the budget crisis have been a long time coming and must be dealt with. We
do have a responsibility to lead and describe problems now and in the
future. Rep. Marzilli does not have a monopoly of concerns for less
fortunate citizens. We all share the same concerns.
We adopted a rule calling for an end of
the session. We are calling to suspend it for a unique purpose. It is our
duty to address vetoes. It’s a constitutional responsibility to meet for
that purpose and that purpose only.
REP. PAULSEN said we can decide
on Dec. 5 whether to retain more revenue to help the needy. Last year they
said Question 4 will have no effect on programs and services. There is
nothing to worry about, we were told. What a difference a year makes.
We should worry about cuts in services.
Very little analysis has been done about the cuts and very few people in
Massachusetts know about the cuts. We can take another look and listen to
analyses and if necessary, think about freezing the tax cut to get us
through this economic downturn.
Without more retained revenue, next year’s
budget will be even more difficult. Out of justice and fairness, we should
retain the opportunity to at least examine and have the discussion about
retaining some revenue to offset some of the cuts. We have not had the
time for full analysis. We have not seen the details. We do not even have
full copies at our desks to look at.
REP. STRAUSS said he opposes the
amendment. I understand the concern but the problem is the reality of the
budget cycle and what are we really saying. The case has been made that if
we vote to freeze, there will be no suffering. The truth is our deficit
this year is $1.3 billion. A freeze might retain something like $200
million.
This is not our choosing that cuts have
to be made. The most important commodity we can offer to the public is
candor and truth and being straight with them.
We have a conference report with a
balanced budget. If we vote to freeze it will have no impact on this
budget, which may be adopted today. The program cuts in the budget would
not be altered. It’s not fair to the public to have them think
otherwise. It’s time to make the tough decisions that we have to.
REP. TEEHAN supported the
amendment. This is an important thing to consider after we consider the
overrides.
Today is the day before Thanksgiving and
we are going to vote on a $22 billion budget that we received online at
midnight and in print at 2 pm this afternoon. Constituents need time to
look at this and we as members need more time.
We suspect we already have a $300
million deficiency in the revenues to take care of this budget. We need to
just pay the bills in the budget, nevermind restoring cuts. We are
spending more than we planned on public safety, for airports, trains,
along our coasts. We will need more for the Department of Public Health so
we can deal with any kinds of situations.
Even if a vote goes through, it doesn’t
mean we’ll restore cuts. But going into debt to pay for pensions and
bonds and leaving this for our children is not responsible and goes back
to the way things were dealt with in the previous recession.
REP HYNES said it will take us
some time to deal with vetoes. Two years ago we began deliberation after 2
pm and concluded a little after midnight. We had 96 roll call votes. And
we have congressional redistricting, which is going to take some time even
if there’s resolution between now and then.
And this matter, delaying or adjusting
Question 4 -- how we deal with tax reduction on Jan. 1 -- if that is
before us and we change the present law it in reality will take two thirds
in this chamber and in the Senate. The governor has affirmed that she will
veto any change to the present law, which requires the rate to go from 5.6
to 5.3 percent on Jan. 1.
We could have done this a week ago but
two thirds vote was not found. So why take it up? Are things to change
substantively in the next several weeks? I don’t think so.
Do not presume to eviscerate Article 48
of the Constitution, which allows people to go to the ballot box and make
changes. Yes circumstances have changed after Sept. 11. But how do we
presume to know what is best and tell the people they don’t matter? So
we eviscerate Article 48.
I suggest that everything to date
indicates that there aren’t enough votes in either chamber. So I would
argue that the realities of passing a bill make it so we shouldn’t adopt
this. We don’t even have a bill before us relative to Question 4. If a
bill is admitted, will a hearing be held in public? I would hope so. But
that is incidental to the practical realities of what would happen in this
chamber if we chose to take it up. So I would urge my colleges to reject
the amendment.
REP. BOSLEY said I hope the
amendment is adopted. The gentleman from Marshfield has talked a lot about
the merits of Question 4. I would like to discuss the merits also, but not
today.
Rep. Marzilli feels the same way. What
we are debating today is the option to discuss Question 4 on Dec. 5. He’s
saying can we keep our options to debate Question 4 on Dec. 5.
If we started on vetoes on Dec. 5 we can
get a lot of vetoes done, but we want the option to debate this. We may
not have two-thirds today but things will change between now and Dec. 5.
This is an ugly budget. It makes lots of
cuts and has low spending limits in a lot of programs. The public is going
to see that and so will we.
When we do overrides, it is the last
step we have in our budget process. The process is a reflection of how we
feel. It is based on revenue and spending. I would suggest that if we are
going to close this budget, we may have to address the revenue side of
things.
It may be that we decide on Dec. 5 that
the budget is just too ugly and we need more revenue. At that point, we
will have seen how the shopping season is shaping up, how the market is,
how revenues look -- factors that could help us decide Question 4.
That’s an option we should have. If we
don’t do anything, the tax will decrease. We will lose $425 million next
year. What we need to do is have that discussion. Just the option. Please
adopt the amendment.
REP. SCACCIA said thank you I
hope this is rejected. If we vote on Dec. 5, I would vote to freeze the
income tax, but that’s not the solution to the problem.
Sept. 11 changed our world. The effect
could be long-term. We could have to change our tax structure. We could
cut more programs. We could be, but right now we don’t know. My advice
is to wait.
But taking up Question 4 is not going to
change the hard ugly budget we just did. If we are going to solve the
issue, we’re going to have to look at revenues. Just freezing Question 4
at this time will not solve the problem -– but it might.
If we wait, we may have a better
picture. But right now Question 4 is not going to solve the ugliness. What
about Question 7, the charitable giving question? The liberals haven’t
looked at that. Should we not look at that question?
Should we not look, Mr. Speaker, at the
giveaways to corporations for keeping jobs here in the state? What about
capital gains? Why do we favor one over the other? We have lost a billion
dollars in these areas.
I can’t predict the future but if we
continue to slide, Question 4 and 7 and capital gains and those 51 tax
cuts are not issues. Maybe if they were all combined, they would be an
issue.
I take issue with the liberals who say
they will freeze Question 4 in December, but not in January, because then
it’s a tax increase. Shame on them.
Have some courage. Most of the people in
here, want to protect Chapter 70 and local aid and they won, for whatever
reason. I disagreed with that. I have items that have been uglyinized in
this budget. I have items that were murdered in this harm. Why didn’t we
spread the harm and ugliness a little wider?
So I say to the liberals -- and it’s
very serious -- we may be in for a time in the future that could be worse
than it is today and we are going to have to rally around Question 4 and
all tax items. And we will have to have the guts to increase revenues.
If you freeze Question 4, you can’t go
to the well too often. You must wait, as I have told the speaker. I
suggest we wait until we have seen the depth of the problem and then
change the tax policy.
REP. STORY said I agree with some
of the words that my liberal friend Rep. Scaccia has just said. We should
look at many of the tax breaks we have given.
But the question today is on Question 4.
One: as my good friend from North Adams said, we are only voting for the
option to take a look at this on Dec. 5. We should keep all our options to
deal with this wretched budget. MTF has told us it would be wise to take a
look at delaying Question 4.
REP. MARINI said this is like
Alice and The Looking Glass. It’s hard to figure out what they’re
saying up here. So let me make clear my position. I am against this. I don’t
think we should freeze the tax rollback. If you favor the freeze, vote yes
on this. If you oppose the freeze, vote no on this. It’s as simple as
that.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 59-97
AMENDMENT REJECTED