Massachusetts Politics

Is it wise and fair to try to raise $2 billion per year in new revenue for improvements to public education and transportation by instituting a surtax of 4% on the incomes of every millionaire in Massachusetts? Seventy percent of the Massachusetts legislators who voted on this question last week believe it is. I’m not a millionaire. I will never be a millionaire.   But, if I were a millionaire, I like to think I’d be willing to pay more taxes in some manner, not because I believe our government is doing everything right and using all of its resources efficiently, because it is not, but rather because we have been underfunding public education for at least the past 10 years and because the documented, unaddressed needs in transportation run well beyond $10 billion, and because I do not think we who have received, grace-like, the benefits of living in the most free, most prosperous, most opportunity-rich country in the world can afford to ignore those needs, giving as an excuse that ...

The plan to have Massachusetts collect about $2 billion more per year through a new 4% income surtax on millionaires seems to be encumbered by an unavoidable-but-possibly-fatal vulnerability. The weakness consists of three simple words in the initiative petition, which is moving toward a statewide vote two-and-a-half years hence: “subject to appropriation.” That phrase lies about a third of the way down in the text, which is as follows: “Amendment Article XLIV of the Massachusetts Constitution is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph at the end thereof:   “To provide the resources for quality public education and affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation, all revenues received in accordance with this paragraph shall be expended, subject to appropriation , [bold faced added] only for these purposes. In addition to the taxes on income otherwise authorized under this Article, there shall be an...

It was one of the more fascinating events to occur at the State House in a long time, this joint session on Wednesday afternoon, May 18, of the House of Representatives and Senate, or constitutional convention as it’s called when both branches meet in the House chamber to consider amending the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The question before the convention was whether to advance an initiative petition that would bring about an amendment imposing a 4% surtax on annual household incomes of $1 million or more.   This new tax would be in addition to the existing 5.1% flat income tax paid by all residents. Enough registered voters (157,000) have signed a petition to put the surtax question on the statewide ballot in 2018. But before it can be put on the ballot, at least 50 legislators must approve the measure during constitutional conventions in two successive years.   By a vote of 135 to 57, the legislature granted the first of those two approvals on Wednesda...

Tomorrow, we’ll be helping to run the Massachusetts Railroad Association’s annual Freight Railroad Day on Beacon Hill.   The association is a long-time client of ours. This is the day when we, accompanied by the professionals from the various member-railroads of the association, try to make as many visits as possible to legislators to tell them about the critical role that freight rail plays in the Massachusetts economy.   These meetings usually go well.   Sometimes, however, signals get crossed, schedules get changed suddenly, and the person you’re hoping to see isn’t in when you get there.   This can get awkward. Imagine a group of eight persons crowded into the foyer of a State House office suite. They tell the receptionist they’re there to see Mr. X, the policy director (or something) for Chairman X.   The receptionist dials Mr. X; the call goes immediately to voicemail.   The receptionist calls someone else, presumably the person in the cubicle next to...

Prior to World War II in the United States of America, Italian immigrants were commonly referred to as Wops and Dagos, and if an Italian immigrant achieved notable success in business, his wealth was often attributed to imagined ties to the Mafia. No one looks back on that state of affairs today and thinks it was anything but an abomination. Donald Trump has categorized all Mexican immigrants as “rapists,” and on Twitter he’s said “the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and Hispanics...,” as if ethnicity and race were determinants of an individual’s criminal tendencies. Trump has also proposed banning anyone who adheres to  Islam from entering the U.S., and creating a national database with information on all Muslims residing in the U.S., the better for government to track their movements, our sacred Constitution be damned. Then there are Trump’s attitudes toward women; he’s long been a raging embarrassment on that score. ...