Page 14 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2020 A note from Bob Katzen, publisher of Beacon Hill Roll Call. Thanks to the many readers who joined me last Sunday night between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. for my talk show “The Bob Katzen Baby Boomer and Gen X Fun and Nostalgia Show.” Tune in every Sunday from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. as we jump in my time capsule and go back to the simpler days of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. There are many ways you can listen to the show from anywhere in the world: • If you have a smart speaker, simply say, “Play WMEX on RADIO.COM” • Download the free RADIO.COM app on your phone or tablet • Listen online at: www.radio. com/1510wmex/listen • Tune into 1510 AM if you still have an AM radio THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ votes on three roll calls from the week of November 9-13. All House roll calls are on proposed amendments to the $46 billion fi scal 2021 state budget that the House considered for two days last week. There were no roll calls in the Senate last week. A LOOK BEHIND THE SCENES OF THE BUDGET “DEBATE” This was the first state budget in the COVID-19 era and most representatives participated virtually from their homes. Most of the decisions on which of the amendments proposed by representatives are included and which are not included in the budget are made “behind closed doors.” Of the 778 budget amendments proposed, most of them are bundled into consolidated amendments by category which are then voted up or down on one vote by the House. This year there were four consolidated $46 BILLION FISCAL 2001 STATE BUDGET (H 5150) House 143-14, approved and sent to the Senate an estimated $46 billion fiscal 2021 state budget that uses $1.5 billion from the state’s Rainy Day Fund to help cover expenses. The House added an estimated $27 million to the price tag of the original version of the budget drafted by the House Ways and Means Committee. Debate was on Tuesday and Thursday instead of the usual four-or fi ve-day period it has taken in the past. The package also includes a con amendments, and all but one were approved unanimously and without real debate. The other one received only one negative vote. The system works as follows: Individual representatives fi le amendments on various topics. Pre-pandemic, members were then invited to “subject meetings” in Room 348 where they pitched their amendments to Democratic leaders who then drafted consolidated amendments that include some of the individual representatives’ amendments while excluding others. This year, negotiations on amendments took place in private Zoom calls, dubbed «348 Zoom,” with a nod to Room 348. Supporters of the system say that any representative who sponsored an excluded amendment can bring it to the fl oor and ask for an up or down vote on the amendment itself. They say this system has worked well for many years. Opponents say that rarely, if ever, does a member bring his or her amendment to the fl oor for an upor-down vote because that is not the way the game is played. It is an “expected tradition” that you accept the fate of your amendment as determined by Democratic leaders. Opponents also say this archaic inside system takes power away from individual members and forces legislators to vote for or against a package of amendments. They argue that individual amendments should be considered on a one-byone basis on the House fl oor. troversial amendment that would allow abortions after 24 weeks in the case of lethal fetal anomalies and lower the age from 18 to 16 that a minor can choose to have an abortion without parental or judicial consent. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation says the budget is approximately $285 million larger than the governor’s revised budget and 5.7 percent greater than the fi nal fi scal 2020 budget. Supporters said the package was a reasonable and fi scally responsible one that funds necessary programs without raising taxes. “Amid this unprecedented global pandemic, the House took action to pass a budget that helps to protect those most vulnerable among us as a result of the widespread effects of COVID-19 with signifi cant investments in housing, substance addiction programs, food security and economic development,” said House Speaker Bob DeLeo (D-Winthrop). “I am proud that this budget also furthers the House’s ongoing eff orts to help survivors of domestic and sexual assault, safeguard women’s reproductive rights, protect the environment and support high-quality early education and care.” Chief House budget writer and House Ways and Means Committee Aaron Michlewitz (D-Boston) did not respond to repeated attempts by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to comment on passage of the budget. Rep. Joseph McKenna (R-Webster) told Beacon Hill Roll Call that he voted against the budget because DeLeo allowed the non-budget policy abortion amendment to be considered despite DeLeo’s recent warning to House members that the budget was no place for outside amendments this year. “After the speaker’s pledge that no policy items would be considered in the budget, I was tremendously disappointed that the Legislature instead took up a tremendously controversial expansion of abortion policy during a lameduck session,” McKenna told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “I could not support a budget that included these measures.” “Black and Hispanic communities have borne the brunt of this pandemic with lack of adequate healthcare and loss of lives and employment,” said Rep. Russell Holmes (D-Boston). “This budget does not show that the Legislature is serious about staving off our pain. The lack of Blacks and Hispanics in the leadership team and us not being in the room where decisions are being made is apparent.” “Speaker DeLeo and Rep. Michlewitz chose to again ignore the needs of my constituents by not providing funding for my district,” continued Holmes. “They chose instead to continue to fund the earmarks of their districts and those members who are in the ‘good ole boy/girl’ network. I take it very seriously that my constituents send me to the Statehouse to vote on their behalf. Each vote is earned and not given. This budget did not earn their vote. (A “Yes” vote is for the budget. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Bob DeLeo Rep. RoseLee Vincent Yes Yes INCREASE ABORTION ACCESS (H 5150) House 108-49, approved a budget amendment that would allow abortions after 24 weeks in the case of lethal fetal anomalies and lower the age from 18 to 16 that a minor can choose to have an abortion without parental or judicial consent. The amendment’s sponsor Rep. Claire Cronin (D-Easton) did not respond to repeated attempts by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking her to comment on passage of the amendment. Republican Minority Leader Brad Jones (D-North Reading) criticized Speaker DeLeo for bringing this nonbudget policy proposal forward after DeLeo had said the budget was no place for outside amendments this year. “It raises the question whether agreements and understandings really mean anything,” said Jones. “I don’t deny the underlying issue is important, critically important to members and to the public. But to be done as part of the budget process is wrong. I don’t care what side of the issue you’re on, being done as part of the budget process in a lame duck session, under the cover of darkness, in the midst of a pandemic is wrong.» “The House of Representatives has taken a critical fi rst step in removing medically unnecessary barriers to abortion care and ensuring that Bay Staters are no longer forced to fl y across country or forced to go to court in order to get the abortion care they need,” read a statement from The ROE Act Coalition which includes the ACLU of Massachusetts, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts. “While our work is far from over, the ROE Act Coalition recognizes the passage of [this amendment] as a signifi cant accomplishment, years in the making.” Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) pointed out several current laws that prohibit actions by people under the age of 18. “If a young girl cannot get married, if she cannot smoke a cigarette, if she can’t drink alcohol, if she can’t vote—I certainly don’t think that she should be able to get a third-trimester abortion without parental or the judicial bypass,” said Garry. “[In] July 2018 we codifi ed Roe v. Wade. This is not protecting Roe v. Wade, this is expanding abortion to the moment of birth and it is just wrong under those circumstances.” (A Yes” vote is for the amendment expanding abortion. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Bob DeLeo Rep. RoseLee Vincent Yes No INCREASE SOME TAXES FROM 5 PERCENT TO 9 PERCENT (H 515) House 30-127, rejected an amendment that would have raised the tax rate on long term capital gains, dividends and interest income from 5 percent to 9 percent. Amendment sponsor Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) said that this sort of income overwhelmingly goes to the wealthiest households. He said the hike would raise an estimated $1.7 billion annually in new, progressive revenue. He called capital gains, dividends and interest “unearned income” that is unfairly taxed at the same rate that the state taxes “earned income” like wages and salaries. He said this is inherently inequitable and means the person working a minimum wage job is subject to the same Massachusetts income tax rate as the person with a billion dollar investment portfolio. “This additional revenue would allow us to stop the cuts at the MBTA and to boost funding for our regional transit authorities,” said Connolly. “It would allow us to guarantee housing stability and it would give us the means to end homelessness in our commonwealth. It would also enable us to live up to the commitments we proudly made earlier this session with the Student Opportunity Act, and it would further enable us to support our public colleges and universities and to expand access to the full range of health care, childcare and social services, programs that are made all the more critical in this time of worsening pandemic, economic hardship and legal threat to the Aff ordable Care Act.” Amendment opponents said that calling capital gains, dividends, and interest “unearned income” is totally misleading. They noted that the taxpayer actually originally earned this income and should not be taxed more than once on it. “To a ‘progressive’ Democrat perpetual tax hikes are the solution to every problem real or imagined,” said Chip Ford, Executive Director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, “and more is never enough.” “Rep. Mike Connolly’s defeated amendment to hike the tax rate on so-called ‘unearned income’ is a perfect example,” added Ford. “He even compared it to the upcoming ‘Millionaire’s Tax’ constitutional amendment to unfairly soak the wealthy that’s being pushed onto the 2022 ballot by the liberal wing of the Legislature—most legislators— that is expected to raise an additional $2 billion annually. More is never enough for insatiable tax-and-spend ‘progressives,’ as this again demonstrates.” “Through the Raise Up Mass coalition, my constituents are calling for greater funding to get us through this crisis and support progressive revenue to do that,” said Rep. Patricia Farley-Bouvier (D-Pittsfield) who voted for the amendment. “In fact, I pledged to a large group just a few weeks back that I would support progressive revenue increases. Though I would have much preferred to take this vote outside the budget process, when faced with an up or down vote, I believe it was important to keep my promise to my constituents.” “Left wing House lawmakers live in a fantasy world where any low value state program should be funded no matter its cost,” said Paul Craney, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “It’s a good day for Massachusetts taxpayers when their proposals are soundly rejected.” (A “Yes” vote is for the hike. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Bob DeLeo BEACON | SEE Page 17 N o Rep. RoseLee Vincent N o
15 Publizr Home