25

THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2021 Page 25 A NOTE FROM BOB KATZEN, PUBLISHER OF BEACON HILL ROLL CALL: Join more than 22,000 people, from movers and shakers to political junkies and interested citizens, who start their weekday morning with MASSterList – the popular newsletter that chronicles news and informed analysis about what going on up on Beacon Hill, Massachusetts politics, policy, media and influence in Massachusetts. The stories are drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications selected by widely acclaimed and highly experienced writers Chris Van Buskirk and Keith Regan who introduce each article in their own clever and never-boring inimitable way. MASSterlist will be e-mailed to you free every Monday through Friday morning and will give you a leg up on what’s happening in the blood sport of Bay State politics. For more information and to get your free subscription go to: www.massterlist.com/subscribe THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records local senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of September 27-October 1. There were no roll calls in the House last week. INCREASE HOURS THAT RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CAN WORK (H 4007) Senate 38-0, overrode Gov. Charlie Baker’s veto of a bill that would increase from 960 hours per year (18 hours per week) to 1,200 hours per year (23 hours per week) the maximum amount of time a public retiree collecting a pension is allowed work for the state or local government. “I support providing municipalities and state agencies with increased flexibility to make appropriate staffing decisions,” said Gov. Baker in his veto message. “However, an increase of 240 more hours per year is a significant policy change and moves the commonwealth and its municipalities closer to a place where employees continue to work near full-time while collecting a pension, without any corresponding changes to improve the current practice. I therefore proposed an amendment that would have increased the number of hours to 975, which more accurately reflects half-time, thereby allowing some flexibility to retired employees who are bumping against the current 960-hour limit. In addition, I proposed a waiver to the hour caps for personnel in positions where a critical shortage of qualified personnel has been determined.” Supporters of the increase to 1,200 hours said that allowing retirees to work 23 hours per week is reasonable and will help many retirees who are struggling to make ends meet. They said it is unfair to punish retirees who would like to work more hours and provide their services to the state or local government. “This increase affords retired employees who are faced with rapidly increasing costs of living the ability to work more hours for the commonwealth and earn enough to meet their needs,” said Senate Ways and Means chair Sen. Mike Rodrigues (D-Westport) who was leading the charge on the Senate floor to override the veto. (A “Yes” vote is for the increase to 1,200 hours. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes REPEAL THE HARBOR TAX CREDIT AND MEDICAL DEVICE TAX CREDIT (H 4008) Senate 33-5, overrode Gov. Baker’s veto of a bill that would repeal the current medical device tax credit and the harbor maintenance tax credit. Baker supported retaining both tax credits and said they encourage innovation and economic activity in the Bay State. “I see no reason to repeal the medical device user fee tax credit, as it is claimed annually by its intended beneficiaries and supports medical device companies operating in the commonwealth,” said Baker in his veto message. “Similarly, I do not support the repeal of the harbor maintenance tax credit. It serves as a benefit to shippers, importers and exporters who generate critical commercial activity in and around Massachusetts ports.” “The Tax Expenditure Review Commission’s recent report made clear that these credits do not provide meaningful benefits to the commonwealth,” said Senate Ways and Means chair Sen. Mike Rodrigues. He noted that Massachusetts is the only state that offers these outdated tax breaks which benefit only a small number of big companies. “We believe that it is important to ensure that our tax dollars are spent in a way that provides tangible benefits to the commonwealth as a whole. Given the failure of these credits to provide a measurable return on investment, they should be repealed.” (A “Yes” vote is for abolishing the tax credits. A “No” vote is for retaining them.) Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes REPEAL $5,000 ASSET LIMIT (H 4012) Senate 37-1, overrode Gov. Baker’s veto of a bill that would repeal a current law that prohibits anyone with assets of more than $5,000 from being eligible for Transitional Assistance to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC)—a program that provides cash assistance and employment support to families with children and pregnant women with little or no income or assets. Assets include things like bank accounts, retirement accounts and cash. Some things do not count as an asset including the person’s house and one car. “TAFDC extends a vital lifeline to certain Massachusetts residents, but I disagree with eliminating the current asset test completely,” said Gov. Baker in his veto message. “I do support reforming the TAFDC asset rule to allow recipients who meet the asset test at the time of application to continue to accrue assets in excess of the current limit without risk of losing eligibility for TAFDC. I would welcome the opportunity to further develop this policy in partnership with the Legislature to ensure these benefits are available for the commonwealth’s families in highest need.” Supporters of repealing the $5,000 asset limit said it is unfair to deny families with children and pregnant women who may have as little as $6,000 to $10,000 in assets from benefitting from the TAFDC program. Some said the asset limit encourages people to spend down their assets at a time when they should be preserving or increasing savings. “Removing the asset limit from the eligibility requirements for TAFDC allows program recipients to maintain their limited savings while still receiving immediate assistance,” said Senate Ways and Means chair Sen. Mike Rodrigues. “Asset limits on these programs have proven to be counterproductive. They require families in need of assistance to spend down savings that otherwise could be used for education, job training, reliable transportation, home expenses and other emergency needs.” (A “Yes” vote is for repealing the $5,000 asset limit. A “No” vote is against repealing it.) Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes REPEAL $250 ASSET LIMIT (H 4011) Senate 36-2, overrode Gov. Baker’s veto of a bill that would repeal a current law that prohibits anyone with assets of more than $250 from being eligible for Emergency Aid to the Elderly, Disabled and Children (EAEDC)—a program that provides cash and medical assistance to certain categories of needy individuals in Massachusetts including the physically or mentally disabled, aged 65 or older or caring for a disabled individual who would otherwise be institutionalized. In his veto message, Baker said that he supports aligning the asset limit for the program with the federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program asset limit which is currently $2,000. “I prefer this alternative to eliminating the asset test completely, as EAEDC is generally designed to provide a bridge to individuals waiting for an eligibility determination from the SSI program. I look forward to the opportunity to work collaboratively with the Legislature to develop a policy that is in alignment with relevant federal policies and ensures that these benefits are available for individuals and families in highest need.” Senate Ways and Means chair Beacon Hill Roll Call By Bob Katzen Sen. Mike Rodrigues said that removing the asset limit allows recipients to receive assistance while keeping their small savings. He noted it is counterproductive to require recipients to spend down savings that could be used for education, home expenses and other important needs. “Forcing those who are already facing economic hardship to spend down savings only makes them more financially vulnerable. In addition to helping individuals and families in need of assistance, removing the asset cap would improve administrative efficiency by simplifying the review process.” (A “Yes” vote is for repealing the $250 asset limit. A “No” vote is against repealing it.) Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes STUDY POVERTY IN THE BAY STATE (H 4016) Senate 36-2, overrode Baker’s veto of a bill that establishes a 29-member special commission to investigate and recommend methods for reducing poverty in Massachusetts over the next 10 years and expanding opportunity for people with low incomes. The commission would include ten members of the governor’s cabinet and other executive branch commissioners. The governor supported reducing the commission from 29 members to 20 members. “I strongly support the aim of this commission,” said the governor in his veto message. “However, in my view, to streamline the efforts of the commission and permit the meaningful participation of all members, it is necessary to modify its composition, retaining the position reserved for the Secretary of Health and Human Services and otherwise removing additional representation from the Executive Branch. Without these amendments, I do not support the proposal.” Senate Ways and Means chair Sen. Mike Rodrigues said that Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest states in the country but is ranked 47th in income inequality, with almost 10 percent of people living in poverty. “This commission would bring together advocates and experts with experience in a wide array of areas to recommend a holistic approach to addressing poverty in the commonwealth,” said Rodrigues. “Through exploring demographic disparities, analyzing historical rates of poverty, identifying the underlying causes of poverty in the commonwealth and surveying existing programs that most effectively reduce poverty, the commission would make policy recommendations to significantly reduce poverty in the commonwealth over the next ten years.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes HOW LONG WAS LAST WEEK’S SESSION? Beacon Hill Roll Call tracks the length of time that the House and Senate were in session each week. Many legislators say that legislative sessions are only one aspect of the Legislature’s job and that a lot of important work is done outside of the House and Senate chambers. They note that their jobs also involve committee work, research, constituent work and other matters that are important to their districts. Critics say that the Legislature does not meet regularly or long enough to debate and vote in public view on the thousands of pieces of legislation that have been filed. They note that the infrequency and brief length of sessions are misguided and lead to irresponsible late-night sessions and a mad rush to act on dozens of bills in the days immediately preceding the end of an annual session. During the week of September 27-October 1, the House met for a total of two hours and ten minutes while the Senate met for a total of four hours and six minutes. Mon. Sept. 27 House 11:03 a.m. to 1:06 p.m. Senate 11:13 a.m. to 1:13 p.m. Tues. Sept. 28 No House session No Senate session Wed. Sept. 29 No House session No Senate session Thurs. Sept. 30 House 11:02 a.m. to 11:09 a.m. Senate 11:23 a.m. to 1:29 p.m. Fri. Oct. 1 No House session No Senate session Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com

26 Publizr Home