Page 16 THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 2021 TAX MILLIONAIRES ANOTHER Beacon Hill Roll Call By Bob Katzen Note from Bob Katzen, Publisher of Beacon Hill Roll Call: Sunday, June 6 was the final broadcast of “The Bob Katzen Baby Boomer and Gen X Show” on WMEX Radio and online at www. wmexboston.com. I want to thank all the listeners, callers and celebrity guests including Jerry Mathers (Beaver Cleaver), Tony Dow (Wally Cleaver), Steve Talbot (Gilbert Bates), Mike Lookinland (Bobby Brady), Susan Olsen (Cindy Brady), Robbie Rist (Cousin Oliver), Tina Louise (Ginger Grant), Jeremy Licht (Mark Hogan), Marc Summers (Host of “Double Dare”) and Frank Bilotta and Renee James (Bilotta Gallery). A big thanks to my entire production staff and correspondents including George Yazbeck, Jeremy McKinnon-Gartz, Mike Phelan, Alan Tolz, Ken Golner, Rob Stone, Len Mihalovich, Paul Yovino, Jon Aldrich, Connor Clougherty and Ben Rabinovitz. We are negotiating for a new broadcast outlet for the show. We’ll be back! “Stay tuned” and I’ll keep you posted. You can also visit us at www.bobkatzenshow.com. THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ and senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of June 7-11. 4 PERCENT (S 5) House and Senate held a Constitutional convention and approved 159-41, (House approved 121-39, Senate approved 38-2), a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow a graduated income tax in Massachusetts and impose an additional 4 percent income tax, in addition to the current flat 5 percent one, on taxpayers’ earnings of more than $1 million annually. Language in the amendment requires that “subject to appropriation” the revenue will go to fund quality public education, affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation. The proposal, dubbed by sponsors as “the Fair Share Amendment” is sponsored by Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) and Rep. James O’Day (D-West Boylston). Opponents reject that label and call it another unnecessary excessive tax. The proposal was also approved by the 2019-2020 Legislature and is now scheduled to go on the November 2022 ballot for voters to decide. Supporters said the amendment will affect only 18,000 extremely wealthy individuals and will generate up to $2 billion annually in additional tax revenue. They argued that using the funds for education and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation will benefit millions of Bay State taxpayers. They noted the hike would help lower income families which are now paying a higher share of their income in taxes. Opponents argued the new tax will result in the loss of 9,500 private sector jobs, $405 million annually in personal disposable income and some millionaires moving out of state. They said that the earmarking of the funds for specific projects is illegal and said all the funds will go into the General Fund and be up for grabs for anything. “When the Fair Share Amendment was first introduced in 2015, there were about 15,000 Massachusetts residents earning over $1 million a year,” said O’Day. “Now in 2021, there are about 18,000 residents earning over $1 million a year. Clearly, there are millionaires and billionaires who can afford to pay their fair share in taxes, which will support our neighbors and local communities with investments in public education and transportation.” “In a brash case of the pot calling the kettle black, after voting to move the graduated income tax to the ballot, Rep. James O’Day said of his targets, ‘They are the ones, obviously, that will have the ability to throw a ton of cash at this issue and that’s probably how they’re going to try to beat it,’” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, which led the charge that defeated the last two attempts to impose a graduated income tax on the 1976 and 1994 ballots. “I hope he’s right,” continued Ford. “The reliably deep pockets opponents of any true ‘tax fairness’ and relentless advocates for higher taxes, the teachers and labor unions that make most ballot questions a financially lopsided affair sound concerned to compete on a more level playing field. So it’s game-on, taxpayers, let round six of the Tax Olympics begin. We need to hand them another grad tax defeat on the 2022 ballot—-for the sixth time.” “The Fair Share Amendment once again received strong support from legislators and, in public polling, typically receives support from more than 70 percent of voters in Massachusetts,” said Lewis. “The reason it is so popular is that most people recognize that our wealthiest residents can afford to pay a bit more in taxes to fund investments in public education and improve our transportation infrastructure that will grow our economy, expand opportunity and make our commonwealth more just and equitable for all.” “Only Beacon Hill politicians want to raise taxes by 80 percent, while simultaneously collecting more tax revenue than they know how to spend,” said Paul Craney, spokesperson for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “The voters should not forget or forgive this level of greed and they will have another chance to hold them accountable in 2022.” “Right now, our economy is working great for those at the very top, but it’s not working for the rest of us,” said Andrew Farnitano, a spokesman for the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition which has led the campaign for the proposal. “Giving every student access to a high-quality public education, upgrading our crumbling transportation infrastructure and making our public colleges and universities affordable again is the best way to lift up our economy for everyone, and to ensure Massachusetts remains a great place to live, work and raise a family. The Fair Share Amendment would provide sustainable, longterm revenue for investments in transportation and public education, without asking low- and middle-income families to pay a penny more.” A report released by the Beacon Hill Institute read, “The proposed surtax would decrease the demand for labor services and the quantity of labor services supplied. It would further increase the cost of obtaining capital services by reducing the after-tax profits that owners could plan on receiving from investments in their business. These effects would further manifest themselves as a reduction in private sector jobs, in disposable income and in state gross domestic product. In 2023, for example, more than 4,000 families would leave the Bay State with employment dipping by nearly 9,000 jobs. Workers will have $963 million less in disposable income and the state’s gross domestic project would shrink by $431 million.” “To make a fully informed decision, voters should understand what the tax changes embedded in the law will mean in terms of costs to the state’s economy,” notes David Tuerck, President of the institute and a co-author of the report. “Supporters of the millionaire’s tax ignore the reality that high-income taxpayers adjust their work effort and their decisions to save and invest, particularly when they are more willing to move.” (A “Yes” vote is for the 4 percent tax. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle Yes Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes REPRECINCTING (H 3863) House 113-29, approved and sent to the Senate a bill that would change how district boundaries for Congress, the State House of Representatives, State Senate and Governor’s Council will be redrawn ahead of the 2022 elections. Traditionally, cities and towns act first in the process by creating their local precincts and boundaries based on the latest decennial U.S. Census population. This time around, the Census Bureau announced in February that as a result of the pandemic it wouldn’t be able to deliver redistricting data by the expected and promised date of March 30, 2021 and have pushed the delivery date to September 30, 2021 with some information possibly arriving in August 2021. This delay makes it impossible for Massachusetts cities and towns to meet the existing statutory June 15 deadline to submit their redrawn precincts to the Legislature. The proposal, approved by the House, would change the order of things by authorizing the Legislature to take the first step by redrawing boundaries for state and federal offices using census tracts and blocks. Cities and towns would be required to complete their reprecincting work within 30 days after the Legislature finalizes districts. “This bill allows the drawing of new legislative districts in a timely manner while keeping us in compliance with state law and the state constitution,” said Elections Laws Committee chair Dan Ryan (D-Charlestown). “We do this while still allowing municipalities to draw their own precinct and sub-precinct boundaries to meet their needs.” “Any claim of urgency is a false flag intended to stifle debate and rush this legislation through,” said Rep. Shawn Dooley (R-Norfolk). “There’s technology that allows for instantaneous reformatting with the click of a mouse, so to say that we’re in a horrific time crunch and that the cities and town clerks won’t be able to get this done on a timely basis is nonsense.” “The delayed release of the 2020 Census data has made redistricting more difficult, but [the bill] is a modest, common sense change that will make both redistricting and reprecincting better for voters and local officials,” said Geoff Foster, steering committee member of the Drawing Democracy Coalition and executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts. “The current timeline gives municipalities an unrealistically short time period in which to redraw precinct lines.” “This complete reversal of the process would lead to unintended consequences and disruption to local governance, charters and elections in many cities and towns across the state,” said Massachusetts Municipal Association Executive Director Geoff Beckwith. “Forcing communities to shape their precincts around new stateset boundaries would lead to significant problems for communities with multiple precincts, especially those with Representative Town Meeting, as well as those localities that elect local officials in districts based on wards and precincts.” Beckwith also noted that “cities and towns are in the best position to take into account neighborhoods and racial and ethnic communities of interest when they draw precincts lines.” “The reprecincting bill was necessary to respond to U.S. Census BHRC | SEE PAGE 17
17 Publizr Home