To cut to the chase: the so-called “millionaires’ tax” constitutional amendment to impose a four percent surcharge on taxable incomes over one million dollars was approved by a vote of 135-57. Fifty yes votes were needed to advance the amendment to another vote in 2017 or 2018.
House members voted in favor, 102-50 (the roll call is here). Senate members voted in favor, 33-7. The no votes in the Senate were: DeMacedo, Fattman, Flanagan, Gobi, Humason, Ross, Tarr. Everyone else (including newly-sworn GOP Senator O’Connor and newly-sworm Democratic Senator Boncore) was a yes. A list of the 40 Senators is here.
One of the 17 House Democrats voting no was David Nangle of Lowell, who denounced the amendment as “the introduction of class warfare.” “It’s stealing from the rich to give to the poor,” he added. “We are legislators. We are not Robin Hood.”
What’s scary is Mariano, who many suspect will attempt to run for speaker once DeLeo retires (if ever), voted No. I hear you don’t want to be on his bad side. You think things are bad now with how leadership runs things, things can get much worse. We need to lay the groundwork now, to make sure Mariano is not our next Speaker.
…and maybe he doesn’t have the support he thinks he does.
Also, count this as another time I wished I lived in Nangle’s district so I could primary him.
Dempsey?
If that’s really how the legislature feels, they could have saved the signature gatherers an awful lot of trouble by proposing a legislative amendment (introduced by a legislator; requires a majority vote to advance) instead of an initiative one (introduced by initiative petition; requires only a 1/4 vote to advance).
…that doing it your way suggests affirmative support whereas this is more of a, “yeah, sure, let the people take this if they want”.
Speaker DeLeo on Monday:
😉
I know you were tongue in cheek, but hear me out.
If Mr. DeLeo believes that (a) the voters will pass it, but that (b) folks won’t generally believe that they will, then you have two scenarios:
Scenario A: The legislature gets this done without a popular vote, and as a result both (i) some of his Democratic legislators and (ii) the tax itself are under threat because the media narrative is that the Democrats are raising taxes again against the will of the voters.
Scenario B: The legislature requires a popular vote, which passes. Now it’s (a) not the legislature’s “fault” that taxes went up, and (b) the tax itself has more staying power over time, a la Prop 2.5 and the income tax reduction.
I’m not arguing that this is what Speaker DeLeo is thinking, but it does seem like a plausible way to get the tax increase without suffering in the ranks and as a way to make the win longer lasting or less at risk of being rolled back.
Then they are now vulnerable.
The ad reads “Rep. X voted to increase taxes!”
Local reporter: “Did you not vote to increase taxes, Rep. X?”
Answer: Well, yes, um, but not exactly. That was a procedural vote to put the issues before the voters in order to blah blah blah.
Voters: [Rep. X voted to increase taxes, and is now dodging the question. .. Hey, Brady’s back!!]
…in the great MA tradition that includes fighting British Parliament over taxation without representation I voted to allow the people to vote on this matter themselves.
Local reporter: “Did you not vote to increase taxes, Rep. X?”
Vulnerable legislator: No, I didn’t vote to raise taxes. I want my constituents decide for themselves, and voted to allow exactly that. This is too important an issue for the 200 legislators to decide up on Beacon Hill all by themselves.
Reporter: So do you support the tax increase?
Vulnerable legislator: I’m on a listening tour, reaching out to my constituents to hear what they have to say.
=-=-=-=
Surely that provides more space for the electorally-weaker Dems than just forcing those vulnerable legislators to take an upperdown on the issue itself, no?
Particularly because the income tax reduction law of 2000 (which Governor Cellucci assured us would not result in any budget cuts, because Laffer Curve) was the result of an initiative petition.
the final up-or-down vote on this issue has to be at the ballot, because the proposal is to change the state Constitution. It’s different from the initiative to cut the income tax rate to 5%, which was ordinary legislation.
But it’s fun when legislators who invoke the people’s will when it comes to the 2000 tax reduction say that the people should not be asked their opinion this time. Take it away again, Representative Nangle:
….to back a speaker and super-majority who have refused to vote on the bills for this?
This is a constitutional amendment, not a law. So regardless of whether it’s proposed by initiative (1/4 legislative vote in 2 successive sessions required to get it to the ballot) or by a legislator (majority legislative vote in 2 successive sessions required), it goes to the ballot. Yes, a signature drive builds up a limited degree of popular support first – but the numbers are so trivial compared to what’s actually needed to pass the thing that I don’t see that as a major factor.
AGAIN. Unlike my delegations’ two Democratic legislators, Rep. Paul Brodeur (D-Melrose) and Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester).
We will remember this vote in November when the people of the 9th Essex District ( Lynn,Saugus,Wakefield) sweep out this status quo, big business, conservative and vote in a true progressive champion for working families — Jen Migliore !
Jen is running for you!
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Campaign Manager
Jen Migliore Committee
They are the rent for infrastructure and the price of civilization. Failure to properly allocate the costs for infrastructure is a recipe for decline for a government, a state, a society.