From the Senate President’s office:
The Senate approved a 6.25 percent sales tax on a veto-proof vote of 29-10.
So there ya go. No roll call yet — will update when I have it.
UPDATE: Here are the NO votes on the sales tax:
Baddour
Brown
Hedlund
Knapik
Montigny
R. Moore
Tarr
Timilty
Tisei
Tucker
Everyone else voted yes, except Senate President Murray who did not vote.
Please share widely!
Or are all of those other trial balloons going to land for a vote too?
Not having a car, my husband and I probably buy more nonfood items on-line than in state.
<
p>We’re happy to pay use tax, but we absolutely cannot be bothered to keep track of all of those purchases. Therefore, the safe harbor provision provides a great deal for us — which means that it is not so great for the state. (At least we make a point of paying the safe harbor amount of use tax; I gather that on this we are in the minority.)
<
p>Senators, now that you have chosen the least progressive tax option, you might give some thought about how to ensure that these funds are collected.
A veto-proof margin for the sales tax increase. They must be so proud of themselves. Where are the cuts? Where are the reforms? Where are the eliminations of the pension abuses and the Quinn bill to be effective immediately? This tax is the single most annoying tax in the Commonwealth’s inventory. I didn’t like it when it arrived in the Volpe era, and I dislike it more, today. The governor should veto it and make them cast votes to override. My position is, if you voted for it, I’m voting against you in the next election.
The lege may have passed it, but the failure to drive reform is on him.
Patrick proposes, the legislature disposes.
<
p>No way a failure to enact reform will stick to the Governor. The legislature will take the blame like a pair of cement overshoes in the middle of Boston harbor.
… Plus the gutting of the ethics reforms, on the heels of yet another speedy exit by house leadership (we miss you Sal.. not.) makes the lege look almost as sleazy as they, in actuality, are… With this Deval has a broadside that the lege can’t withstand.
<
p>The people of the commonwealth might be tolerant, but that ought not to be mistaken for cupidity or stupidity.
<
p>A vote of 108-51 in the house and 29-10 in the Senate is only a narrow 2/3 in each instance. A veto forces a re-vote and Deval only has to get a very few to flip and the bill is stymied. Deval has absolutely nothing to lose on this… The only way he loses is if he caves and doesn’t veto.
<
p>
<
p>I’m with you there. I’m not going to vote for Jennifer Flanagan, my state senator. She’s lost my vote with this.