THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records the votes of local representatives on ten roll calls and local senators on three from the week of April 28-May 2.
Several of the House roll call votes involve successful attempts by Speaker Robert DeLeo and his Democratic leadership team to prevent Democratic members, in an election year, from having to vote directly against several Republican proposals including ones to reduce taxes.
Here’s an example of how it works: The Republicans offer a proposal to reduce the sales tax from 6.25 percent back to 5 percent. If the Democratic leadership does nothing, there would be a roll call vote directly on the tax reduction. Most Democrats would vote against it and then would be open to charges of being anti-taxpayer in the election campaign.
The Democrats, with a 129-29 membership advantage, control the House. A Democratic member offers a “delaying” amendment that would prohibit the tax reduction from taking effect until the Department of Revenue studies the impact of the cuts.
Under House rules, the amendment to study and delay the tax cut is voted upon first. If it passes, which it always does, no other amendments can be introduced and the original proposal that would simply cut the tax is dead without ever having a direct vote on it. Republicans say that the studies are a sham because they are never done.
This is all pre-planned by the Democratic leadership. The speaker at the podium calls upon a representative who is loyal to him and that member proposes the delay and study. Even if a Republican member is waving his or her hands and shouting to be recognized, he or she will not be called upon because he or she would not propose the delay and study.
GOP members have always been wary of this ploy and this year many spoke out strongly against it. They urged the Democratic leadership to stop purposely trying to confuse the voters and instead allow a vote directly on the tax reductions themselves. They said the Democratic leadership hopes that voters see that their representative voted “yes” but do not realize that the “yes” vote is not in favor of the tax cut but rather in favor of the study and delay. Some GOP members said that voters are smarter than Democrats think and will see through this charade.
The Democrats fall into four categories. Some Democrats favor the tax cut and vote with the Republicans against the study. Others say that they are truly open to the tax reduction but vote for the study because they want to find out the cost first. A third group opposes the proposal but also opposes the study because they feel that there should be a direct vote on the proposal. Most vote for the study and acknowledge that the study is designed to protect incumbent Democrats and prevent them from being required to vote directly against tax cuts.
Beacon Hill Roll Call urges you to read the roll calls carefully and be aware that in most cases in which a study is proposed in place of a tax cut, a “yes” vote is for the study and essentially is against the tax cut. Conversely, a “no” vote is against the study and generally favors the tax cut.
HOUSE APPROVES $36.2 BILLION BUDGET (H 4000)
House 148-2, approved and sent to the Senate an estimated $36.2 billion state budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014. The Senate will soon draft and approve its own version. A House-Senate conference committee will eventually craft a plan that will be approved by the House and Senate and then sent to Gov. Deval Patrick.
The House on the floor added more than $100 million over a three-day period. While some controversial amendments were debated on the House floor, most of the work was done behind the scenes. Individual representatives filed dozens of amendments on the same general subject matters, including local aid, social services and public safety. They were then invited to “subject meetings” at which they pitched their amendments to Democratic leaders who drafted “consolidated amendments” that were brought to the House floor for consideration and easily approved.
Supporters said the budget is a fiscally responsible and balanced one that funds important programs to the best of the state’s ability during this difficult economy.
Opponents said the budget process was flawed from day one when the House voted to prohibit any amendments increasing local aid or reforming welfare. They argued the budget does not help reduce property taxes, supports in-state tuition for illegal aliens but not for veterans and spends $2 billion on people who do not qualify for state benefits including illegal immigrants.
(A “Yes” vote is for the budget. A “No” vote is against the budget.)
Rep. Denise Provost Yes Rep. Carl Sciortino has resigned Rep. Timothy Toomey Yes
STUDY GAS TAX EXEMPTION FOR CITIES AND TOWNS (H 4000)
House 119-32, approved an amendment prohibiting a proposal exempting cities’ and towns’ vehicle fuel purchases from the 24 cents per gallon gas tax from taking effect until the Department of Revenue studies the economic impact of the exemption.
Supporters of the study said the proposal is attractive but noted that the actual cost is unknown and might be a lot higher than the up to $11 million that proponents of the exemption are indicating. They argued that the study will simply allow accurate estimates of the costs.
Opponents of the study said that the exemption would save cities and towns $11 million that they could use to make up for local aid cuts. They argued that the exemption would simply replace the current system under which communities pay the gas tax to the state, which then distributes the revenue to communities in the form of Chapter 90 money for road and bridge repairs.
The roll call vote is on the amendment to study the tax exemption. (A “Yes” vote is for the study. A “No” vote is against the study and favors the exemption.)
Rep. Denise Provost Yes Rep. Carl Sciortino has resigned Rep. Timothy Toomey Yes
STUDY SALES TAX CUT FROM 6.25 PERCENT TO 5 PERCENT (H 4000)
House 115-36, approved a Democratic leadership-sponsored amendment prohibiting a proposal reducing the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 5 percent from taking effect until the Department of Revenue studies the economic impact of the exemption.
Supporters of the study said the state cannot afford the estimated $1.25 billion loss of revenue and predicted that this tax cut would result in reductions to local aid, education, health care and human service programs.
Opponents of the study said this increased sales tax is hurting consumers and retail operations, especially those on the state’s borders. They argued that you can’t tax your way out of this poor economy and urged the state to live within its means.
The roll call vote is on the amendment to study the tax cuts. (A “Yes” vote is for studying the tax cut. A “No” vote is against the study and favors the tax cut.)
Rep. Denise Provost Yes Rep. Carl Sciortino has resigned Rep. Timothy Toomey Yes
STUDY REDUCING INCOME TAX RATE TO 5 PERCENT (H 4000)
House 118-32, approved a Democratic leadership-sponsored amendment prohibiting a proposal reducing the income tax from 5.3 percent to 5 percent from taking effect until the Department of Revenue studies the economic impact of the exemption.
Supporters of the study said the state simply cannot afford to lose billions of dollars in revenue that will result in severe cuts to very important programs like education, local aid, mental health and substance abuse.
Opponents of the study said that voters in 2000 approved a gradual reduction of that year’s 5.85 percent tax to five percent by January 2003, and it is time for the Legislature to honor that vote. They argued that the billions of dollars saved by taxpayers will be pumped back into the economy.
The roll call vote is on the amendment to study the tax cuts. (A “Yes” vote is for studying the tax cut. A “No” vote is against the study and favors the tax cut.)
Rep. Denise Provost Yes Rep. Carl Sciortino has resigned Rep. Timothy Toomey Yes
STUDY PROHIBITING LOWER TUITION RATES FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (H 4000)
House 103-46, approved a Democratic leadership-sponsored amendment prohibiting a proposal prohibiting illegal immigrant students from paying the preferred, lower in-state tuition rates and fees at Massachusetts state colleges and universities from taking effect until the Department of Higher Education studies the impact of the prohibition.
Supporters of the study said many of these students were babies when they were brought here by their parents and had no choice about entering the country illegally. They noted some hardworking students are currently required to pay out-of-state tuition rates that are up to five times higher than the in-state rate.
Opponents of the study said the state should not offer financial rewards to anyone who has broken the law and is in this country illegally. They argued it is outrageous to offer low tuition rates to these students while legal citizens from outside Massachusetts, including war veterans, are required to pay higher rates if they attend a Massachusetts state school.
The roll call vote is on the amendment to study the prohibition of lower tuition rates illegal immigrants. (A “Yes” vote is for the study. A “No” vote is against the study and favors the prohibition.)
Rep. Denise Provost Yes Rep. Carl Sciortino has resigned Rep. Timothy Toomey Yes
STUDY LOWER TUITION RATES FOR VETERANS (H 4000)
House 107-42, approved a Democratic leadership-sponsored amendment prohibiting a proposal that would allow honorably discharged veterans to pay the preferred, lower in-state tuition rates and fees at Massachusetts state colleges and universities from taking effect until the Department of Higher Education studies the impact of the lower rates for veterans. The proposal would offer the discount to all in-state veterans and to any veteran from across the nation who designates Massachusetts as his/her intended home and moves to Massachusetts within one year of attending a state college and university.
Supporters of the study said there is no estimate on how much it would cost the state to offer this discount to all these veterans.
Opponents of the study said it is outrageous that the state provides the lower tuition rate for some illegal immigrants but not to veterans.
The roll call vote is on the amendment to study the lower tuition rates for veterans. (A “Yes” vote is for the study. A “No” vote is against it and favors the lower tuition rate for veterans.)
Rep. Denise Provost Yes Rep. Carl Sciortino has resigned Rep. Timothy Toomey Yes
POLICE IN SCHOOLS (H 4000)
House 29-118, rejected an amendment that would allow public schools to use current or former police officers to provide security in the schools. The police officer would not receive a salary but would receive a tax credit equal to the amount he or she would receive if working a regular police detail. The credit would be capped at $8,000.
Amendment supporters cited many recent school shootings and said this would help protect students at no cost to the city or town.
Amendment opponents said this would cost the state an undetermined amount of revenue and noted additional funds are already in the budget for public safety and youth violence prevention. They noted the bill is poorly drafted and doesn’t specify what training these officers would be required to have.
(A “Yes” vote is for allowing police officers in schools. A “No” vote is against allowing it.)
Rep. Denise Provost No Rep. Carl Sciortino has resigned Rep. Timothy Toomey No
$249.8 MILLION IN NEW LOCAL AID (H 4000)
House 31-119, rejected an amendment that would provide $249.8 of local aid in addition to the $150.2 increase communities are already receiving. The $249.8 would be used for property tax relief and would be distributed based on a formula that would ensure that each community receives a total of 8 percent more in Chapter 70 school aid and unrestricted local aid than it did last year. Some communities that under the original $150.2 million are already receiving an 8 percent hike would receive $0 additional under the formula.
Amendment supporters said the funds will help local taxpayers who are being squeezed by property taxes.
Amendment opponents said the state simply cannot afford this money.
(A “Yes” vote is for the $249.8 million. A “No” vote is against it.)
Rep. Denise Provost No Rep. Carl Sciortino has resigned Rep. Timothy Toomey No
USE SURPLUS FOR LOCAL AID TO CITIES AND TOWNS (H 4000)
House 32-119, rejected an amendment that would require one-half of any state tax revenue, above the projected $24.3 billion in expected revenue in fiscal 2015, to be distributed to cities and towns as unrestricted additional local aid. The amendment would cap the amount at $100 million.
Amendment supporters said this would ensure that the Legislature does not squander any budget surplus. They argued that struggling cities and towns deserve this excess money.
Amendment opponents said it is irresponsible to promise any portion of this excess revenue to cities and towns without knowing what the state’s financial situation will be at that time. They argued that the amendment would tie the hands of the Legislature.
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment requiring that up to $100 million go to local aid. A “No” vote is against the amendment.)
Rep. Denise Provost No Rep. Carl Sciortino has resigned Rep. Timothy Toomey No
FIND MISSING KIDS (H 4000)
House 29-122, rejected an amendment that would provide $200,000 for the state to hire private investigators at $50 per hour to search for missing children under the custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF).
Amendment supporters said there are currently 134 children under DCF care who are missing and this would put more resources into finding them. They said the current $500,000 in the budget for a pilot program to investigate missing children is too vague.
Amendment opponents said the amendment is unnecessary because the budget already puts $500,000 into a program to investigate to look for missing children.
(A “Yes” vote is for the $200,000. A “No” vote is against it.)
Rep. Denise Provost No Rep. Carl Sciortino has resigned Rep. Timothy Toomey No
HIKE MINIMUM WAGE TO $11 PER HOUR (S 2123)
Senate 34-5, approved a bill hiking the current $8 per hour minimum wage by $3 over the next three years, beginning on July 1, 2014, to $11 per hour. Future wages would be automatically raised to reflect increases in the consumer price index. Other provisions make changes in the state’s unemployment insurance system including freezing the 2014 unemployment insurance tax rate paid by employers at the 2013 level instead of allowing an automatic scheduled increase to take effect.
Supporters said this pro-worker bill would ensure economic justice and help thousands of families that are living near the poverty level despite the fact that the breadwinner works in excess of 40 hours weekly. They argued that a minimum wage hike is one of the best anti-poverty programs available.
Opponents said the hike is excessive and noted they supported a more moderate hike to $9.50. They argued the bill is unfair to businesses that are already faced with skyrocketing health care and energy costs and would also hurt consumers by forcing businesses to raise prices.
(A “Yes” vote is for the minimum wage hike to $11. A “No” vote is against it.)
Sen. Patricia Jehlen Yes
HIKE MINIMUM WAGE TO $9.50 PER HOUR (S 2123)
Senate 7-31, rejected an amendment that would hike the minimum wage from $8 per hour to $9.50 per hour over two years instead of to $11 per hour over three years. Instead of tying future hikes in the minimum wage to increases in the consumer price index, the amendment requires the minimum wage to be reviewed every two years by administration officials, who would be required to submit a recommendation on whether or not to increase it.
Amendment supporters said this is a more reasonable hike that is fair to workers and employers.
Amendment opponents said the $9.50 will not provide sufficient help to families living near the poverty level despite working 40 or more hours per week.
(A “Yes” vote is for the hike to $9.50. A “No” vote is against it.)
Sen. Patricia Jehlen No
DELETE TIES TO CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (S 2123)
Senate 11-27, rejected an amendment that would delete the section that ties future hikes in the minimum wage to increases in the consumer price index.
Amendment supporters said that any future hikes should be decided by legislators and not by a faceless index.
Amendment opponents argued that tying the hike to the index will ensure the minimum wage continues to rise in an appropriate manner to help hardworking people support their families.
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment deleting the section raising future wages based on the consumer price index. A “No” vote is against the deletion and favors the tie to the consumer price index.)
Sen. Patricia Jehlen No
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 April 28-May 2, the House met for a total of 37 hours and 42 minutes and the Senate met for a total of two hours and 54 minutes.
Mon. April 28 House 10:04 a.m. to 9:17 p.m.
Senate 11:01 a.m. to 11:14 a.m.
Tues. April 29 House 10:14 a.m. to 10:43 p.m.
No Senate session
Wed. April 30 House 10:05 a.m. to 12:05 a.m. (Thurs.)
No Senate session
Thurs. May 1 No House session
Senate 1:02 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.
Fri. May 2 No House session
No Senate session
Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com