By Herald Staff
The Baker administration has thrown the Legislature — and the taxpayers — a lifeline when it comes to dealing with rising Medicaid costs — which account for nearly 40 percent of the state budget. Lawmakers should grab it.
To do so — especially with the uncertainty in Washington, D.C., on health care these days — the administration has gone to the Way-Back Machine, returning to the concepts and efficiencies the state was able to implement under Romneycare back in 2006. Yes, before Obama- care chewed up a perfectly good system that had managed to insure 97.8 percent of the state’s population.
So now Gov. Charlie Baker, who knows a little something about the business of health insurance himself, is proposing a way out of a more than $300 million budget hole created by mounting costs of the $16.6 billion MassHealth program. Continue reading
By Jeff Jacoby
Massachusetts voters have made some reckless choices over the years (two words: Barney Frank), but on the subject of income taxes their judgment has been consistently prudent and restrained.
In 2000, for example, the voters approved a ballot initiative reducing the income tax rate from 5.75 percent to 5 percent; but in 2002 and 2008 they defeated measures that would have wiped out the income tax altogether. In 1998, voters overwhelmingly said Yes to taxing dividends and interest at the same rate as ordinary income. During a recession in 1990, on the other hand, they firmly said No to a sharp rollback in state taxes and fees. Continue reading
By Matt Murphy
Employers would be counted on to pay $200 million more a year over the next two years to help pay for rising expenses in the state’s $16.6 billion Medicaid program under a plan the Baker administration presented to the Legislature Tuesday to balance next year’s budget.
The plan, a sweeping package of insurance reforms and temporary assessments, calls for a two-tiered assessment on companies, with the bulk of the burden falling on employers with non-disabled workers who enroll in MassHealth.
The new strategy deviates from the $2,000 assessment on certain employers that Gov. Charlie Baker proposed in his budget in January, a plan that sought to raise $300 million. Business groups and lawmakers raised concerns over the governor’s plan, but the House and Senate deferred to the administration in their budgets, essentially signaling to Baker to work with the industry to come up with a compromise. Continue reading
By Matt Stout
Gov. Charlie Baker is scrapping his controversial plan for a new $2,000 per-employee fee on businesses that don’t offer health insurance in favor of a new proposal his aides say would instead hike existing fees and could generate $200 million.
The new plan is part of a package of legislative changes Baker filed today with the legislature’s budget committees that could, in total, generate $314 million in savings or new revenue next fiscal year, according to his office.
It comes months after he first floated in his budget proposal a plan to hit employers who don’t offer health coverage with a $2,000 per-employee assessment, a move that was intended to help rein in growing MassHealth costs and drum up $300 million in revenue. Continue reading
By Priyanka Dayal McCluskey and Jon Chesto
“There are lots of priorities in state government [and] providing health insurance to people is certainly an important one,” said Mark Gallagher, executive vice president at the Massachusetts High Technology Council. “As a program starts to creep up to 40 percent of the state budget, it starts to become the one and only priority of state government, and everything else is pushed far down the priority list.”
Governor Charlie Baker initially proposed a $300 million new fee that would have charged businesses $2,000 per worker to help pay the costs of MassHealth, the state Medicaid program.
Governor Charlie Baker’s push to compel businesses to cover more of the state’s ever-rising health care costs gained momentum Tuesday after his administration scaled back a controversial plan that had angered business leaders. Continue reading
By Greg Ryan
“Mark Gallagher, an executive vice president at the tech council, told the Business Journal that while the legal arguments against the law are still being worked out, opponents would likely contend that amendments to the state constitution cannot set aside funding for specific uses.“
The Massachusetts High Technology Council, one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed so-called “millionaires’ tax,” has hired the law firm Goodwin to work on a potential lawsuit that would seek to kill the proposal before it heads to voters next year.
The proposal, championed by the union-backed group Raise Up Massachusetts, would raise the income tax on residents who make over $1 million by 4 percentage points. Its backers landed a victory Wednesday when lawmakers on Beacon Hill overwhelmingly supported the measure, a vote that will put the proposal before Bay State voters as a ballot question in November 2018, barring a successful court challenge. Continue reading
By Shirley Leung
There is little common ground between supporters and opponents of paid family leave legislation, but this much they agree on: We can’t do this by ballot petition.
That’s because voter initiatives can be a messy way to create law. For proof, look no further than how we legalized recreational marijuana.
So my advice to advocates of the bills backing paid family leave and business groups that oppose them: Get together, roll up your sleeves, and work out your differences. It’s time to implement legislation that mandates employers offer paid leave for workers who must take time off for medical reasons or take care of a new child or ill family member. Continue reading
By Kari Jahnsen
On Wednesday, the Massachusetts legislature is scheduled to hold a constitutional convention on a so-called “millionaire’s tax.” The “Fair Share Amendment” would levy a 4 percent surtax on income above $1 million. This surtax would be in addition to the 5.1 percent state income tax, making the total income tax burden for high-income residents 9.1 percent.
The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) estimates that the surtax would bring in almost $2 billion in additional revenue annually, which the amendment would direct towards transportation and education funding. That revenue would be raised from taxing only 19,600 taxpayers, representing 0.5 percent of all filers. Of those taxpayers, the wealthiest 900 would pay 53 percent of the new tax revenues.
By Andy Rosen
Christopher Anderson, president of the Mass High Technology Council, said Flannery “has all of the global experience and is totally focused on innovative tech.”
“He’ll be able to fit right into a number of other successful tech [companies] who have their headquarters in Massachusetts and fit into the global market,” he said.
General Electric Co. rolled into Boston with an unambiguous message, delivered by chief executive Jeffrey Immelt: The corporate giant wanted in on the “sea of ideas” created by the city’s culture of research, academics, and startups.
Now, as GE settles in, it will move forward without the day-to-day leadership of the man whose passion for change drove GE to move from suburban Fairfield, Conn. to be around the Boston’s world-renowned innovation scene.
People in the local tech scene said they believe the announcement Monday that John Flannery will take over as CEO does not darken the outlook for GE and Boston, where the company is building its new headquarters in Fort Point. Continue reading
By Jon Chesto
A proposal that would impose more taxes on the rich to pay for education and transportation is expected to be an easy sell to voters.
That’s why the state’s most powerful business groups want to stop the initiative before it gets that far. They’re working on a legal challenge to scuttle the so-called millionaires tax.
The Massachusetts High Technology Council just sent out a letter to its roughly 150 members, seeking contributions of $10,000 to $25,000. The surcharge, council president Christopher Anderson wrote, could cause irreparable harm to the state’s innovation economy.
Other influential business groups — such as the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership — also oppose the labor-backed surcharge. Among their strategies: filing a lawsuit later this year that challenges its constitutionality. Continue reading