8

Page 8 THE MALDEN ADVOCATE–Friday, November 4, 2022 Beacon Hill Roll Call By Bob Katzen GET A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO MASSTERLIST – 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’s going on up on Beacon Hill, in Massachusetts politics, policy, media and infl uence. The stories are drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications selected by widely acclaimed and highly experienced writers Keith Regan and Matt Murphy who introduce each article in their own clever and 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: https://lp.constantcontactpages. com/su/aPTLucK THE HOUSE AND SENATE: There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week. This week, Beacon Hill Roll Call looks at an important but little-known roll call vote from 2019 related to Question 1 on the November ballot. BEHIND THE SCENES ON QUESTION 1 The fi rst question on the November ballot asks voters if they favor a proposed constitutional change that would allow a graduated income tax in Massachusetts and impose an additional 4 percent income tax, in addition to the current fl at 5 percent one, on taxpayers’ earnings of more than $1 million annually. Language in the change requires that “subject to appropriation, the revenue will go to fund quality public education, aff ordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation.” Supporters say the change will aff ect only 18,000 extremely wealthy individuals and will generate up to $2 billion annually in additional tax revenue. They argue that using the funds for education and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation will benefi t millions of Bay State taxpayers. They note the hike would help lower income families which are now paying a higher share of their income in taxes. Opponents argue 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 say that the earmarking of the funds for specific projects is a phony sham and argue all the funds will go into the General Fund and be up for grabs for anything. While considering the measure in 2019, Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading) off ered an amendment that was defeated 34-123 by the House and 6-33 by the Senate. The amendment would have required that the revenue generated by the 4 percent tax be in addition, not in lieu of, the amount of funding for education and transportation that the Legislature already spends on those two areas. Amendment supporters said this will prevent a “bait and switch” scenario in which $1.9 billion in new revenue from the 4 percent tax is dedicated to transportation and education but then the Legislature takes money out of the money currently spent in those areas and spends it elsewhere. The net result would be that the $1.9 billion would be essentially spent in other areas rather than the two promised ones. Amendment opponents said the intent of the amendment is clear and SKATING CENTER www.Roller-World.com 781-231-1111 HELP WANTED Earn $16. Per Hour Skate Guards • Snack Bar & Office Help Must be 17 years or older - Hours Can Be Arranged Open 7 Days Per Week Call Jerry at 617-620-9201 Located at 425R Broadway (Route 1 South), Saugus MBTA Bus Route 429 there is no evidence that this is a “bait and switch” amendment. They argued that the proposal is on solid ground and that there is no need to add this language. “Question 1 supporters claim all of the revenues generated through the proposed surtax on income above $1 million will go to education and transportation, but the truth is this funding would be ‘subject to appropriation,' which means the Legislature can spend it any way it wants,” said Jones. “I off ered the amending language requiring that any revenues raised be allocated ‘in addition to’ and not ‘in lieu of’ funding that is already being spent in these two areas. Voters have an expectation that Question 1 will provide for increased spending on education and transportation, and my amendment would have off ered some degree of certainty that that will actually happen. Without this stipulation, I’m afraid voters are being sold a false bill of goods that could result in a ‘bait and switch’ that provides no net increase in education or transportation spending.” “The Jones amendment, twice proposed and defeated…during the constitutional amendment debates, was intended to codify proponents’ alleged intent and assurances and hold them to it,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation which opposed and defeated the last two graduated income tax ballot questions to amend the state constitution in 1976 and 1994. “The amendment would have enshrined in this constitutional amendment what is being blithely asserted by proponents, that all new revenue from the potential surtax on millionaires would supplement rather than supplant existing spending on transportation and education. If anyone needs evidence that this is a 'bait and switch' scam to deceive voters, they need look no further than those two defeats of that one amendment.” “This amendment that was off ered and rejected, would have held accountable the proponent’s claim that this 80 percent income tax hike would be used for the additional spending on education and transportation,” said Paul Craney, spokesperson for the Mass Fiscal Alliance. “It failed because the Legislature cannot be bound by a ballot question for how it spends our tax dollars. If Question 1 is passed, there is absolutely no guarantee this 80 percent income tax hike would be used on additional spending for transportation and education.” Three key players who support Question 1 did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call to comment on the Jones’ amendment, including Questions 1’s co-sponsors Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) and Rep. Michael O’Day (D-West Boylston),as well as Andrew Farnitano, spokesperson for the “Yes on Question 1” campaign. (Here is how your local legislators voted on the Jones amendment that would require the revenue generated by the 4 percent tax be in addition, not in lieu of, the amount of funding for education and transportation that the Legislature already spends on those two areas. A “Yes” vote is for the Jones amendment. A “No” vote is against the Jones amendment. Please note that this is not a vote on Question 1 itself, but rather a vote on the Jones amendment). Rep. Paul Donato No Rep. Steven Ultrino No Sen. Jason Lewis No ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL STEP THERAPY (H 4929) – The House and Senate approved and sent to Gov. Charlie Baker a bill that limits the use of health care plan mandated prescription drug “step therapy” protocols and provides more exemptions to the mandate. Step therapy requires the patient to try less expensive options before “stepping up” to drugs that cost more. Conditions which would exempt a patient from trying the less expensive drug fi rst include if the treatment will harm the patient, or if the patient previously tried the required treatment, or similar treatment, and it was ineff ective. Supporters said that insurers that utilize step therapy protocols require medical providers to prescribe lower-cost medications to patients fi rst, and only grant approval for alternative medications when the cheaper options have failed to improve a patient's condition. This results in insurers effectively choosing medications for the patient, even in cases where their providers have recommended an alternative. When patients change insurers, they are often forced to start at the beginning of the step therapy protocol again, which results in wasteful health care expenditures, lost time for patients and potentially devastating health care impacts on the patient. “Today, we are taking action to ensure that patients with complicated illnesses receive the medications that their doctors know they need—not repeatedly taking medications that are ineff ective,” said sponsor Sen. Julian Cyr (D-Truro), Senate Chair of Committee on Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Recovery. “Waiting for treatment to fail fi rst before utilizing a preferred medication often leads to worsening symptoms that cause complications and needless suff ering for patients. It is a shortsighted practice that puts paBHRC | SEE PAGE 9 Monogram D4 Double siding Cedar impression half rounds Harvey Vinyl 64 Replacement Windows Custom Aluminum Trim work Windows & Doors Top quality Vinyl Siding! •Vinyl Siding •Carpentry Work •Decks •Roofing •Free Estimates •Replacement Windows •Fully Licensed •Fully Insured

9 Publizr Home