Transportation and education priorities in Massachusetts could get a step closer to reaping $2 billion a year with a vote this week.
Tax collections are up, and the federal government has sent billions in relief funds to the state.
Matt Murphy of the State House News Service joins us to talk about the week ahead, including lawmakers' efforts to move ahead with the so-called millionaire's tax. A vote is planned for this week on the proposed constitutional amendment.
Carrie Healy, NEPM: This income surtax has been years in the making. Have attitudes changed since this was first introduced?
Matt Murphy, State House News Service: The political and fiscal climate in Massachusetts has changed considerably since this was first introduced. But this has been years in the making. And the legislature, on Wednesday, is poised to take the final vote required before this question could go on the [November 2022] ballot for voters to finally decide.
Massachusetts is currently on trackto end the fiscal year in June with a significant surplus, which is markedly different from what people feared when the pandemic started. They're currently debating how to spend $5.3 billion in federal relief money.
“Why do you need $2 billion more?” is a question that some people, particularly critics of this, are asking. But given that this passed in the last session with ample support — a 147 to 48 margin — it’s hard to see that attitudes have changed enough for this question to be in jeopardy, especially since people know that the federal relief money will eventually run out and expire.
And supporters continue to say that there is need here, long-term, to find a revenue source to pay for things like the 2019 education reform law.
We're about a week away from the date Governor Charlie Baker plans to end the declared state of emergency. Before that, lawmakers want to pass a law to allow government bodies to keep meeting virtually — for example, another pandemic remote workaround, telehealth. There's been support expressed to keep that around. Where are lawmakers focusing those efforts, and is it likely that they'll meet that deadline?
The deadline is certainly on their minds, and they have held a few hearings, and continue to take testimony on some of these things — including some of the provisions you mentioned, like remote meetings, for instance.
It's just hard to know whether or not they'll be ready in time to tackle all of these issues. Some of them could have long-term implications for certain industries, like the restaurant industry. But there are opponents to continuing popular things, like "cocktails to go," or even the outdoor permitting.
The Package Store Association wants to end "cocktails to go" for restaurants. So there's a lot of different opinions to sort through. It'll be interesting to see whether or not they extend some of these, and hold off making decisions on others. But this is still very much a work in progress.
It's almost unusual now for a gathering to be offline. But the 80-member Massachusetts Republican State Committee is holding a meeting in person, closed to the press. They plan to vote on changes to the state GOP bylaws and convention rules. What changes are they planning, and why?
Yeah — two significant changes here that the party is considering. One put forward by former Rep. and Senate candidate Jeff Diehl — who is openly considering running for governor. He has proposed lowering the threshold at the Republican convention to qualify for the ballot, if you're running for statewide office, from 15% of the voting delegates to 10%. This would make it easier for people to qualify to run statewide.
Diehl says this is an effort to signal to everybody that the Republican Party is inclusive, and wants a different range of voices to be able to run as Republicans.
The other, more controversial: This would remove people like Gov. Charlie Baker, Lt. Gov. Karen Polito, and the Republican leaders in the House and Senate from the party's executive committee. These elected officials hold these positions on the executive committee automatically, by virtue of their title. Proponents of this say that they want to keep the executive committee, which controls things like endorsements, to those elected members of the state committee — and remove the influence that a political leader like a governor could have.
But some people see this as a reflection of the tension between the more moderate governor and the rightward swing of the party. And Gov. Baker last Friday, himself, said it did not make a lot of sense to him.
