The annual state budget process, now underway, has opened a new battlefront in the ongoing power struggle between the Senate and the House: what’s a “money bill?”
Our State Constitution (in Part II, chapter 1, section 3, article 7 for you wonks out there) says that “all money bills shall originate in the house of representatives; but the senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills.”
We know from a very old decision by the Supreme Judicial Court (126 Mass. 557 for you wonks out there) what a money bill is not — it is not simply a bill that appropriates money for government spending. Money bills, the court said in that decision, are those that “transfer money or property from the people to the State.”
The Constitutional provision giving the Senate the power to “propose or concur with amendments” to money bills muddies the waters of that court decision a little. Are money bills only those that raise taxes? If the House were to propose a new tax, the Senate’s power to propose amendments would seem to allow that body latitude to increase or to lower that tax, or other taxes, or to change tax deductions or tax credits, or to otherwise amend state tax policy.
So in recent memory the House and Senate have defined a money bill as any bill that alters tax policy. In 1997, for example, the House budget proposal included a tax credit for homeowners who had to upgrade their septic systems and a one-year extension of an investment tax credit. The Senate, with the understanding that the House budget was a money bill, proposed additional tax credits and deductions, including the establishment of a state counterpart to the federal earned income tax credit for low-income families.
In the interest of preserving its sole power to originate money bills, and therefore to control when taxes are even considered, the House has been very careful about when it proposes any changes in tax policy. And the Senate has kept its side of the bargain, deferring to the House — to the frustration of many of that body’s members who would like an opportunity to debate tax policy, including its GOP members, who are eager for a debate on tax cuts.
But this year there are complications. During its budget debate last month the House adopted an amendment expanding the cap on a land conversation tax credit from $2 million to $5 million (a proposal, if you’re wondering, that has not been through the Speaker’s vaunted “committee process”). The inclusion of that provision led Senate President Rosenberg to pronounce the House budget a money bill and to add that the Senate would be taking up taxation issues in its budget debate.
It’s not clear whether House Speaker DeLeo was aware of the money bill implications of the tax credit amendment when he agreed to it. He has said that he disagrees with the Senate position (but note that he avoids using the language — “money bill” — that would clarify his view): “I don’t think it’s a revenue bill…I think a revenue bill involves that where, very simply, you’re talking about the increasing of revenue and I don’t think the budget that we did did that at all. So I feel clear that it’s not a revenue bill.”
It would seem that the Speaker now has a couple of choices: to concede that the tax policy provision in the House budget makes that bill a money bill, or to adopt a new policy that restricts the definition of a money bill to one that increases revenue rather than one that alters tax policy. The second choice might help save face this year, but it would mean a significant weakening of the power of the House to control tax policy debate in the future.
In the meantime, the Senate will have a rare opportunity for far-ranging tax policy discussions in its budget debate next week.
To sum up this latest skirmish: unforced error by Speaker DeLeo, advantage Senate President Rosenberg.
(Cross-posted at hesterprynne.net.)
…that this constitutional provision, and it’s federal counterpart, were written in times where things moved more slowly, legislatures were not in session nearly as often, and people not in the same room could not communicate instantaneously. Therefore, there was a clear step-by-step process that a bill originated in one chamber, debated, passed, THEN sent to the other chamber and so forth. Today things work more on parallel tracks, which they almost have to in the state given the joint committee structure, so consideration is done simultaneously.
The key reason for making sure the state and federal Houses originated bills raising revenue has also, I think, become moot over time. Both clauses were written when memories of British taxation policy, a key impetus for seeking independence, were still fresh. The framers wanted taxation to originate as close to the people as possible and the Houses as opposed to the Senates had the broadest voting base, and the US Senate was of course not popularly elected at all, but rather chosen by state legislators. These days, though smaller districts in most cases put Representatives a bit closer to the ground than Senators the suffrage requirements are the same and thus Senators are just as accountable to the people as Representatives.
Given that absent an amendment we do have to pay some heed to the wording of the Constitution I would argue that as long as the House officially votes on final passage before the Senate does, even if by just five minutes, the bill can be construed as having originated in the House.
First Off: There is no legislative body closer to the people then the house of reps. It protects us from the elites taking over. There is deep historical and political thought that speaks of the neeed for a house in the federal and stae governments.
So David Bernstein can take his elitist view of government and his cry to abolish the MA House of Reps and keep it in Virginia, the place he calls home.
As for Stan the man Rosenberg I have obne question. What are his bargaining chips? Why on earth would the House ever give in to Senate’s wishes to change the rules of the joint committees and change the “money bill” staus quo.
Oh wait, Blue Mass Group and the Boston Globe say it’s unfair and the House, the closest to the people, should just give up some power because , why again?
Oh, Stan’s a liberal’s liberal so he is a good person and anythibg he wants is for the good of man.
Stan Rosenberg has done nothing but insult the House since he became Senate Prez. He wass a failure as a chair of Senate Ways and Means because and so far I see no reason to believe he will be any better as Senate prez.
He does like the celebrity of the job and that’s not good either.
…he did a good job running the Senate side of Redistricting in 2011.
If you could give some examples re: Ways and Means?
more easily controlled by its leader than the state legislature.
Fewer voters choose a state rep than choose a state senator.
You’re a little rusty, Ern. I thought you’d appreciate the Cullen post. I couldn’t remember if it was he or McGrory who went out to Ludlow so he could write a column about how stupid the residents were for supporting Tommy Petrolati. I’ve read better slam books left behind by my students.
wife got a job out of his Probation scamming, through the ELMO program. Don’t know how many others got their goodies…