THE HOUSE AND SENATE. Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives' votes on ten roll calls and local senators' votes on two roll calls from the week of April 26-30. The House debated and approved a $27.8 billion fiscal 2011 state budget.

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 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 five 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 143 to 16 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 and the Lottery Commission study the impact of the cuts and a new bill to reduce the tax is filed and approved.

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, but 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 three 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. Most vote for the study and acknowledge that the study system 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.

STOP SCHOOL BULLYING (S 2404)

House 159-0, Senate 37-0, approved and sent to Gov. Deval Patrick the conference committee version of the bill requiring all public and private schools to develop and implement a plan to prevent bullying from occurring and to discipline bullies. The measure prohibits bullying on school grounds, at any school-sponsored event or activity on or off campus, through the use of the school's computer system while on or off campus and through the use of any personal digital device on campus and in any non-school related situations if the bullying affects the school environment or creates a hostile environment at school for the victim.

The legislation also requires schools to provide professional development for teachers and other staff to help them prevent and stop bullying, all school staff to promptly report bullying when they witness or become aware of it and school principals or their designees to immediately investigate and take appropriate disciplinary action. Regulations will be developed to guide principals on when to report an act of bullying to law enforcement.

Supporters said that bullying continues to be a major problem in schools and noted that there is a very strong link between bullying and increased violence, substance abuse, absenteeism, poor performance in class and drop-out rates. They argued that a tough bullying law is long overdue and will save countless children from a lifetime of physical and emotional scars and worse. They pointed to recent cases in Massachusetts in which victims of bullying committed suicide. (A "Yes" vote is for the bill.)

Rep. Thomas Calter, Yes                                     Rep. Daniel Webster, Yes                                     Sen. Robert Hedlund, Yes                                     

STUDY REDUCING SALES TAX FROM 6.25 PERCENT TO FIVE PERCENT (H 4600)

House 97-57, approved a Democratic leadership-sponsored amendment indefinitely delaying a proposal to reduce the state's sales tax and meals tax from 6.25 percent back to five percent. The amendment prohibits the tax reduction from taking effect until the Department of Revenue and the Lottery Commission study the impact of the cuts and a new bill to reduce the tax is filed and approved.

Some supporters of the study said that the state cannot afford the loss of revenue and predicted that this tax cut would result in more reductions to important programs. Others argued that they were open to a tax cut but not without first studying its impact.

Opponents of the study said that 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 a recession and urged the state to live within its means.

In November 2009, the House 103-51, approved a similar delay.

The roll call votes are on the amendment to study the tax cut.

The first roll call listed is from 2009. The second roll call is from 2010.

(A "Yes" vote is for studying the tax cut. A "No" vote is against the study.)

Rep. Thomas Calter, No/No                                   Rep. Daniel Webster, No/No                                   

STUDY ELIMINATING THE 6.25 PERCENT SALES TAX ON LIQUOR (H 4600)

House 88-67, approved a Democratic leadership-sponsored amendment indefinitely delaying a proposal to eliminate the 6.25 percent sales tax on liquor, wine and beer purchased at package stores. The amendment prohibits the tax cut from taking effect until Gov. Patrick's Executive Office of Administration and Finance and the Department of Revenue study its impact and a new bill to eliminate the tax is filed and approved.

Some supporters of the study said that the state cannot afford this revenue loss which would lead to cuts in important programs. Others argued that they would be amenable to eliminating the tax but wanted to first study its impact.

Opponents said that this 6.25 percent sales tax is an unnecessary one on a product that is already heavily taxed at the state and federal level. They argued that the tax is hurting all liquor stores, especially small "mom and pop" stores and stores in cities and towns on the border of other states with a smaller tax.

In November 2009, the House 99-54, approved a similar delay.

The roll call votes are on the amendment to study the tax cut.

The first roll call listed is from 2009. The second roll call is from 2010.

(A "Yes" vote is for studying the tax cut. A "No" vote is against the study.)

Rep. Thomas Calter, No/No                                   Rep. Daniel Webster, No/No                                   

STUDY PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE PROOF THAT BENEFIT RECIPIENTS ARE LEGAL (H 4600)

House 83-75, approved a Democratic leadership-sponsored  amendment that would indefinitely delay a proposal to require the state to verify that anyone over 18 who applies for state benefits is legally in Massachusetts. The amendment prohibits the proposal from taking effect until Gov. Patrick's Office of Health and Human Services studies its impact on the state's economy and a new bill to require the verification is filed and approved.

The proposal would require a person seeking benefits to produce proof that he or she is here legally by providing either a valid Massachusetts driver's license or identification card, U.S. military card, Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card, military dependent’s identification card or Native American tribal document. Anyone who could not produce one of those documents would have the option to execute a notarized affidavit stating that he or she is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident or is otherwise lawfully present in the United States.

The measure provides many exemptions from the requirement and allows people who cannot produce the necessary identification to still receive emergency medical treatment, immunization and services such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention and short-term shelter.

Some supporters of the study said that the proposal is mean spirited and anti-immigrant and noted that many illegal immigrants are hardworking people who perform jobs that most Americans would not do. Others said that the House should gather information before making a rash decision and noted that this problem really should be solved on the federal level. Some argued that there are many legal immigrants who would find it difficult to produce the necessary documents.

Opponents of the study said that it is simply another example of a sneaky way for legislators to avoid a direct vote on the proposal itself. They said that the study would never be conducted and that the measure would never be implemented. They noted that state services, with some emergency exceptions, should not be provided to people who broke the law and are here illegally. They emphasized that the legislation would only apply to illegal immigrants and includes many safeguards to protect individual rights. Some argued that the state should not be spending money on illegal immigrants during this recession when people are losing their jobs and homes and there are drastic cuts in many state services.

In April 2009, the House 118-40, approved a similar delay of the same bill. That delay replaced the bill with a requirement that the state conduct a cost-benefit study of the services that immigrants receive versus their contributions to the state's economy and the constitutionality of denying public services to immigrants regardless of immigration status. Supporters of the proposal note that this 2009 study was never conducted.

The roll call votes are on the amendments to study the proposal.

The first roll call listed is from 2009. The second roll call is from 2010.

(A "Yes" vote is for the study. A "No" vote is against the study.)

Rep. Thomas Calter, No/No                                   Rep. Daniel Webster, No/No                                   

STUDY $234 MILLION INCREASE IN LOCAL AID FUNDING (H 4600)

House 114-44, approved a Democratic leadership-sponsored amendment indefinitely delaying a proposal restoring $234 million in local aid to cities and towns and level funding local aid at last year's levels. The amendment prohibits the local aid increase from taking effect until the state treasurer studies its impact and a new bill to fund the increased local aid is filed and approved.

Supporters of the study said that the state simply cannot afford the $234 million and noted that cutting local aid was a difficult but necessary decision. They noted that the House budget is based on a difficult $3.2 billion structural deficit.

Opponents of the study said that for days they have proposed a variety of amendments that would save the state money that could have been used to fund this $234 million. They noted that cities and towns are struggling and will have to make more major cutbacks if they do not receive additional local aid.

(A "Yes" vote is for studying the $234 million local aid increase. A "No" vote is against the study.)

Rep. Thomas Calter, No                                      Rep. Daniel Webster, No                                      

STUDY GIVING 50 PERCENT OF ANY SURPLUS TO LOCAL AID (H 4600)

House 102-56, approved a Democratic leadership-sponsored amendment indefinitely delaying a proposal that would give 50 percent of any fiscal 2011 future state surplus money to cities and towns as local aid. The amendment prohibits the granting of the additional local aid until the state treasurer and the Department of Revenue study its impact and a new bill to increase local aid is filed and approved.

Supporters of the study said that everyone would like to increase local aid but argued that it is fiscally irresponsible to commit in advance that one-half of any surplus would be used for local aid. They said that the Legislature should decide what to do with additional revenue if and when it surfaces.

Opponents of the study said that any surplus should be used to help struggling communities avoid education cuts and police and firefighter layoffs.

(A "Yes" vote is for studying the local aid increase. A "No" vote is against the study.)

Rep. Thomas Calter, No                                      Rep. Daniel Webster, No                                      

STUDY GAS TAX EXEMPTION FOR CITIES AND TOWNS (H 4600)

House 124-32, approved an amendment prohibiting a proposal exempting cities and towns' vehicle fuel purchases from the 21 cents per gallon gas tax from taking effect until the Department of Revenue studies the economic impact of the exemption and a new bill to allow the exemption is filed and approved.

Supporters of the study said the proposal is attractive but noted that the actual cost is unknown and is probably a lot higher than the up to $15 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 between $10 million and $15 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.

(A "Yes" vote is for the study. A "No" vote is against the study.)

Rep. Thomas Calter, Yes                                     Rep. Daniel Webster, No                                      

$5,000 TAX CREDIT FOR PAYING FOR ELDERLY PARENT CARE AT HOME (H 4600)

House 22-134, rejected an amendment giving a $5,000 tax credit to taxpayers who pay for home health services for themselves, a parent or parent-in-law over 60 or for home hospice services for anyone.

Amendment supporters said that this would provide some financial relief to these taxpayers, boost the economy, create jobs and help keep more seniors and sick people at home rather than a nursing home.

Amendment opponents said that this is a kind and useful amendment that the state just cannot afford at this time. They argued that the state would lose an estimated $87 million.

(A "Yes" vote is for the $5,000 tax credit. A "No" vote is against it.)

Rep. Thomas Calter, No                                      Rep. Daniel Webster, Yes                                     

INCREASE TAX ON DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST FROM 5.3 PERCENT TO 12 PERCENT (H 4600)

House 9-147, rejected an amendment that would hike the tax on interest income and dividends from 5.3 percent to 12 percent. The first $5,000 of this income would be exempt for senior citizens over 65.

Amendment supporters said that the hike would affect mostly wealthy taxpayers and will generate an estimated $500 million that the state could use to fund local aid and many human service programs that were cut.

Amendment opponents said that the hike would not just affect wealthy people. They argued that a tax hike during this recession would only make the economy worse.

(A "Yes" vote is for raising the tax. A "No" vote is against raising the tax.)

Rep. Thomas Calter, No                                      Rep. Daniel Webster, No                                      

HOUSE APPROVES $27.8 BILLION FISCAL 2011 STATE BUDGET (H 4600)

House 132-25, after five days of debate, approved and sent to the Senate an estimated $27.8 billion fiscal 2011 state budget. All 16 Republicans and nine of the House's 143 Democrats voted against the budget. Several controversial amendments were debated on the House floor but 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. All of these consolidated amendments were easily approved with most of the opposition coming from Republicans who argued that the amendments were too costly and unaffordable during this recession.

Supporters said that the budget is a fiscally responsible and balanced one that funds important programs to the best of the state's ability during this recession. They said that the budget does not raise taxes or take money from the Rainy Day Fund and closes a projected $3.2 billion budget gap through several means, including cuts to state spending totaling over $1.4 billion.

Opponents said that the budget is fiscally irresponsible, includes wasteful spending and omits many tax cut proposals that were offered. They argued that many reasonable reforms that would have saved money and funded more local aid and other important programs were rejected.

(A "Yes" vote is for the budget. A "No" vote is against the budget.)

Rep. Thomas Calter, Yes                                     Rep. Daniel Webster, No                                      

RESTRICT TANNING SALONS TO ADULTS (S 2339)

Senate 37-0, approved and sent to the House a bill that would prohibit anyone under age 16 from using a tanning bed at a tanning salon. Teens age 16 and 17 would be permitted to tan with parental permission.

Supporters said that these booths are dangerous and increase by 75 percent a person’s chances of getting melanoma. They said that while adults can make their own decisions, it is the state's job to protect children. They recalled the case of Glenna Kohl, a young Barnstable lifeguard who used tanning beds, and how she testified at the Statehouse in favor of this bill before she lost her three-year battle with melanoma.

(A "Yes" vote is for the bill.)

Sen. Robert Hedlund, Yes                                     

ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL

BARS MUST HAVE LIABILITY INSURANCE (H 947) - The Senate approved a House-approved bill that would require restaurants and bars to purchase a liquor legal liability insurance policy to cover bodily injury or death.

Supporters said that this would ensure that these establishments are financially responsible if someone is killed or injured as a result of a customer being served liquor and becoming intoxicated.

The bill needs only final House and Senate approval prior to it going to Gov. Patrick.

MISLEADING POLITICAL WEBSITES (H 557) - The House gave initial approval to a bill prohibiting political candidates or their supporters from registering websites that "could be identified as the website of another person who is an elected official, or a candidate or potential candidate for elective office." Violators would be hit with a fine of up to $1,000 or six months in prison. The measure is aimed at political operatives who register websites in the name of their client's opponent and then say outrageous things on the website that the voters think is being said by the opponent.

HISTORIC STONE WALLS (H 1694) - The House gave initial approval to a bill that would increase the current fine of $10 imposed on anyone who steals stones from a Massachusetts historic stone wall. The measure would allow imposition of up to a six-month prison sentence and/or the greater of up to a $500 fine or three times the value of the stones that were removed. It also revokes the offender's driver's license or delays for one year the right of a defendant under 16 to get his or her license.

QUOTABLE QUOTES

"This is a tax on a tax on a tax. We get a tax on the wholesaler, we get a tax on the retailer, we get a tax on the consumer."

–– Rep. Christopher Fallon (D-Malden) speaking in favor of repealing the 6.25 percent sales tax on already-taxed alcohol sold at package stores.

"A number of people have said that what’s really wrong this is that it’s a tax on a tax. And I would just point out that there are many instances where a state tax is levied on something that has another tax. Tobacco products would be one that very easily comes to mind. There are lots of federal and state taxes on tobacco products. There are sales taxes on tobacco products as well. So this is not unique and I don’t think that we should treat it as such."

–– Rep. Steven Kulik (D-Worthington) defending the sales tax on liquor.

"Cowards."

–– House Republican Leader Bradley Jones (R-North Reading) criticizing Democratic leaders for their tactics that allowed legislators to vote to send tax cut proposals to study committees instead of voting directly on the tax cuts themselves.

"In here, the word 'study' means dead. Is there anybody here that will stand up and debate me on that?"

–– Rep. James Fagan (D-Taunton) also criticizing the practice.

"I don't need no stinkin' amendment."

–– Rep. George Peterson (R-Grafton) joining the criticism.

"It's appropriate that we see the mercurial operations of the Senate here."

–– Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) describing the Senate after a senator debated a bill dealing with mercury disposal when in fact it was a bill on museums that was up for consideration.

Beacon Hill Roll Call

Volume 36 - Report No. 17

April 26-30, 2010

Copyright © 2010 Beacon Hill Roll Call. All Rights Reserved.