March 24, 2010 11:41 AM

By Milton J. Valencia, Globe Staff

Saying the state is on the verge of an economic recovery, Governor Deval Patrick today dismissed any notion of raising the gas tax and defended the state and national health care reform laws, in the first breakfast forum planned for 2010 gubernatorial candidates.

The discussion, hosted by the Associated Industries of Massachusetts and Denterlein Worldwide at the UMass Club in Boston, was at once witty and serious as the governor sought to outline his agenda in hopes of a second term in office, and to explain his policy decisions over the past four years.
greene_sjcgants2_met.jpg Governor Deval Patrick

Saying he has had to engage in “hand-to-hand combat” at times with even his friends to get measures approved, Patrick cited education and transportation reform, changes to the state’s pension system and the use of civilian flaggers as controversial, yet important achievements.

“Unless you’re willing to take shots, unless you’re willing to put your political capital on the line and take hits, you’ll never make change,” the governor said.

Patrick said he saw no valid argument for increasing the state’s gas tax. “I just don’t think we can keep adding at these times,” he said.

The forum, called “In the News,” was the first that organizers hope to have with the gubernatorial candidates. Patrick engaged with host and longtime Boston television reporter John Henning as some 50 of the state’s top business leaders had a breakfast of bacon, eggs, home fries, and fruit.
Related

State Treasurer Timothy Cahill, an independent candidate, is expected to meet with the group next month, and Republican candidates Charles Baker and Christy Mihos have also been invited, organizers said.

“The focus is really going to be on economic issues, business development and job creation,” said Paul Jean, of Denterlein Worldwide, a public affairs firm specializing in health care and public policy.

Patrick started his 40-minute appearance by expressing support for the national health care plan President Obama signed into law Tuesday, and he assured the crowd that he and the state’s congressional delegation worked to make sure that states like Massachusetts that already have their own plans will not be harmed.

He said Massachusetts could receive as much as $7 billion as a result of the national plan, and that the state will continue the Health Connector, which runs an online site where consumers can shop for health insurance.

He also defended the state’s universal health care plan against allegations that it is putting the state in debt, saying the plan only made the state budget grow by 1 percent.

“There’s a lesson in there, that we have to pay for it all one way or another,” the governor said. “But I think we are doing it in a way that is smarter, better, and more efficient.”

He acknowledged that any program of such magnitude would constantly need readjusting. Of particular concern is the impact on small businesses, he said, citing as an example a Worcester law firm that saw its costs jump more than 20 percent just by hiring two lawyers and a receptionist.

The governor vowed to continue to examine the state’s transportation system, but dismissed any notion of hiking the gas tax, saying the state cannot afford it at this time. The governor had supported a gas tax in the past because, under state law, any revenues from the tax would have to be redirected to transportation projects.

The governor did say he is moving forward with plans to connect commuter rail service to southeastern Massachusetts and said construction on a terminal in New Bedford could start this year.

“That is enormously important to our regional economy, and that’s a project that has to happen,” he said.

By Eric Grunebaum  |  May 25, 2009

DESPITE the Massachusetts Senate’s passage of a tax package last week, it’s clear that funds allocated for transportation – principally from the sales tax – are simply not enough. Moreover, with the rejection of 19- and 11-cent gas tax increase options, what seems to be absent from the debate is the compelling environmental argument for a hike in the gas tax.

Looking at the evidence for climate change – and its dire consequences – it’s clear that we need to get serious about weaning ourselves from our CO2-emitting, petroleum-based economy. Already in evidence is faster-than-expected melting of the polar ice cap, an incipient rise in sea levels, and increasingly destructive storms, droughts, and heat waves, with more serious consequences likely to follow. Meanwhile we’re spending vast treasures buying oil from largely hostile nations.

What we need are policies that send clear market signals encouraging change. The governor and business groups demonstrated real leadership in proposing 19- and 25-cent gas tax increases, respectively. Even tax-averse New Hampshire is considering a 15-cent increase. And in April, the Globe itself endorsed removing the sales tax exemption for gas, which equates to about a dime a gallon. At a minimum, we need the 19-cent increase and the $500 million it would raise for the transportation system.

However, we need the increased gas tax not just to provide a dedicated source of funding to fix crumbling infrastructure, not just to create jobs, and not just to rescue our public transportation authority. What we need it for above all else is to encourage the move toward more efficient cars, hybrids, and plug-in electrics. And we need the gas tax hike, not just to prevent layoffs and service cutbacks, but to make public transportation and trains more attractive relative to driving, and to increase transit availability. Based on last summer’s gas prices, it’s clear that people do adjust to sustained price signals.

We also need the gas tax to encourage people to bicycle and to fund design work so that we can unlock federal dollars for more bikeways. Eighty million dollars of federal funds for these projects, which Massachusetts has left on the table, may soon be forfeited. Similarly, we’re behind the Midwest and California on high-speed rail. As with bikeways, our lack of planning may cost us a share of $8 billion in federal subsidies, which could help us move to a less auto-centric future.

While the wisdom of the Big Dig can be debated, it’s a done deal and the bill is due, as well as the bills for long-deferred maintenance of our highways and perpetually underfunded public transportation. But let’s recognize that all corners of the state do share in the Big Dig’s benefits, if not directly while driving to the airport and hospitals or while taking part in the city’s commerce or culture, then certainly in the lifting of the state’s broader fortunes.

Yet, rather than more tolls – an inequitable and selective tax – what we need are the subtle market adjustments of a gas tax to put Massachusetts ahead of other states in making the switch to a post-petroleum transportation model, and perhaps closer to our friends across the gradually rising Atlantic. And despite its green credentials, the Northeast is the seventh largest producer of CO2, when compared with the world’s largest nations. As a major emitter, this is our problem to solve.

In the move toward a greener economy, Massachusetts has done well so far. Due to the governor and state Legislature’s efforts – along with our region’s academic leadership, business ingenuity, and groups like the New England Clean Energy Council – we are well-poised to create more green jobs, reduce our environmental impact, and keep advancing our leadership position. But we have a long way to go.

Yes, we need additional revenue from the sales tax to maintain services. And yes we need reform, transparency, and less redundancy in our transportation bureaucracy. But what we need above all else is the political will to use the tools available only to our government to give us a nudge in the right direction. And the gas tax hike is precisely the nudge we need.

Eric Grunebaum is a documentary film producer.

A top House lawmaker today called Gov. Deval Patrick’s proposed 19-cent gas tax hike unlikely to receive further attention from the Legislature for the foreseeable future, after the Senate rejected the measure Tuesday, and as legislative officials voiced annoyance with Patrick for trying to play a larger role in deliberations.

“I think that the gas tax is off the table for now,” said Rep. Joseph Wagner, House chair of the Transportation Committee.

Patrick, who has said he would veto a sales tax if the Legislature does not present him with adequate reforms, turned up the heat on lawmakers Wednesday afternoon, accusing those voting for higher taxes of disrespecting voters.

“This really isn’t about State House dynamics between the Governor and the Legislature – the public could care less about that,” Patrick said in a statement to the News Service. “What they do care about – particularly those families struggling to find a job or keep one, or pay for their home or their kids’ education – is being asked to pay more for the status quo. To ask them to dig deeper into their pockets for higher taxes without first adopting meaningful reforms is thumbing our nose at them.”

Patrick two years ago asked for higher corporate and local options taxes and in January proposed a 19-cent per gallon gas tax, calling the revenue urgently needed, along with a passel of reforms.

Legislative officials said they had been displeased with Patrick administration’s efforts to gain rare Executive Branch access to closed-door deliberations between lawmakers discussing a major transportation overhaul. Patrick aides asked for working documents, which would have been “unprecedented,” according to one legislator. Those requests were swiftly rejected, according to sources with knowledge of the discussion.

Lawmakers said they regarded the overtures as trespassing.

“That just wasn’t going to happen,” said an anonymous lawmaker familiar with the request.

The snub came before Patrick sent confidential letters to both transportation and pension conference committees advising them of his preferences in each bill. Some lawmakers interpreted the letters themselves as intrusive.

“I’m reluctant to talk about things because we are in conference,” said Wagner, the lead House negotiator. “I will say this, since we have been in conference, I have not had any contact with any members of the administration, about conference.”

On March 19, in a tentative deal to postpone pending toll hikes, Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert DeLeo announced intentions to delay the first stage of $100 million worth of toll hikes, address a transportation reform bill in the next two weeks, and enact a transportation financing bill by July 1.

“As the matter now stands before the conferees, the Legislature has had this matter for 90 days, give or take, and the administration had promised it since the fall of 2007,” Wagner said. “I am comfortable that our pace is fairly quick when compared with the administration’s pace over the course of some 15 months or so, give or take. May have been 16 months.”

In November 2007, Patrick’s then-transportation chief, Bernard Cohen, said he wanted a transportation overhaul in place by March 15, 2008, and Patrick said the reforms would be filed “in the very near future.” Patrick filed the legislation Feb. 24, 2009.

Wagner refused to discuss details related to conference committee deliberations.

Both the House and Senate voted to set aside $275 million in their budgets for transportation needs, funded by a 25-percent sales tax hike. The Senate on Tuesday voted 34-6 to reject the 19-cent increase to the existing 23.5-cent-per-gallon rate Patrick had filed. A second vote, on an 11-cent increase, fared slightly better, with 30 nays and 9 yeas.

“I’ve made my position on the issue very clear over a period of time, that a determination of that would be made by the number of votes that there were or were not for a gas tax,” Wagner said. “And I think the vote in the Senate yesterday made quite clear that the votes are not there in the Legislature to move forward with increasing the gas tax … at 19 cents.”

Patrick has repeatedly threatened to veto the sales tax hike, from 5 percent to 6.25 percent, if lawmakers did not pass satisfactory overhauls of the state’s transportation, pension, and ethics systems. So far, Patrick has found flaw with different versions of all three.

Patrick’s press aides declined comment.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1173740

Gov mustn’t sell out his tax opposition
/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1173731

Patrick: Mass. helped propel Obama emissions plan
/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1173713

Mass. Senate gears up for bleak budget debate
/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1172738

BOSTON — Will Massachusetts drivers have to dig deeper in their wallet to pay at the pump in the coming year?

New House Speaker Robert DeLeo seems to think so. When pressed in a recent NECN interview, he said it was “a pretty good bet” a gas tax hike would be approved this year.

The emotional issue of a gas tax increase — coming on the heels of volatile prices at the pump last summer — will be one of the stickier issues as Statehouse leaders try to shape a major overhaul of the state’s debt-ridden transportation system this year.

What hasn’t been spelled out is how large the tax increase could be, or where the money would go.

Gov. Deval Patrick has called the gas tax a “serious alternative” to staggering, proposed toll hikes on the Massachusetts Turnpike and the Boston Harbor tunnels. DeLeo, D-Winthrop, hasn’t taken a position on the gas tax and is said to be exploring all the options, his comments on NECN notwithstanding.

Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, has been resistant, saying the Senate won’t even consider raising the gas tax until the state’s transportation bureaucracy is reformed.

“We have no intention of taking up a gas tax until we reform and reorganize the transportation agencies,” Murray said in an interview, while not ruling out the need for a hike in the future.

‘Waste in the system’

Senate leaders filed a 268-page bill last week that reorganizes the state’s quasi-independent transportation agencies and takes back extra benefits for MBTA employees. The plan is projected to save $2.5 billion over the next two decades, in part by eliminating expensive outside consultants to state authorities.

“There is a lot of waste in the system,” Murray said. “To ask the public to put more money into our pockets, I don’t think it’s realistic until we show them we are looking to pull back and reform what we have so it is accountable and responsible.”

The state charges taxes of 23.5 cents per gallon of gas. Since 1991, it has been raised only once, a 2.5-cent per gallon charge that was dedicated to a fund to clean up underground storage tanks.

Michael Widmer, the president of the influential, business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, served on a state panel that recommended increasing the gas tax by 11.5 cents a gallon. The panel said it was needed to help close a $15 billion to $19 billion gap in transportation funding over the next 20 years.

“I think the situation is very fluid,” Widmer said. “My sense is all three leaders, the Senate president, the speaker and the governor understand how desperate the transportation funding picture is and that new revenues are necessary. So I think there’s quiet agreement on that.”

Two years ago, many legislators scoffed at the panel’s recommendation. Since then, the debt problems at the Turnpike Authority, which is saddled by the Big Dig, have only worsened. The MBTA is also staggering under debt.

Proposals for stark toll increases have shaken legislators whose constituents use the Tobin Bridge, harbor tunnels and Turnpike every day.

Patrick has said a gas tax would have to be part of a long-term plan to address the state’s transportation needs, and not as a short term fix for tolls.

Widmer put the odds of transportation reform and a gas tax hike at “better than 50/50 … but how and where the money goes, I think is very much up for grabs.”

The transportation panel believed every region of the state needed to be guaranteed infrastructure improvements from a gas tax increase. Legislators from areas outside metro Boston would be sure to insist on it.

Big Dig debt looms large

Rep. Stephen R. Canessa, D-New Bedford, filed legislation this year to create a commission to study the fairness and structure of the state’s entire tax and fee system. He said constituents have a hard time keeping track of local and state fees when they set a household budget.

“There have been many proposals that have been put forth relative to the issue of the gas tax, and I need to see the details,” Canessa said.

“As a legislator from Southeastern Mass., what I’m concerned about is I don’t want to see the debt of the Big Dig passed onto constituents who for the most part don’t benefit from the Big Dig.”

Rep. Jeffrey Perry, R-Sandwich, called for a gas tax holiday when gas prices were sky high last summer. He said the economic crisis was an opportunity for Beacon Hill Democrats to deliver on overdue reforms instead of a tax hike.

“When push comes to shove, what we are starting to see is no reform getting done and people looking toward taxes,” Perry said. “Let’s get rid of the Turnpike. Let’s merge it with MassHighway. Let’s look at

the MBTA. Let’s look at what we get for cost savings before we even consider increasing the gas tax on people who are struggling to make ends meet every day.”

Governor Deval Patrick is also considering a system that would charge drivers based on the miles they travel. Governor Deval Patrick is also considering a system that would charge drivers based on the miles they travel.
By Matt Viser
Globe Staff / February 10, 2009

Governor Deval Patrick is considering raising the state’s gasoline tax by as much as 29 cents per gallon, which would at once give Massachusetts the highest state gas tax in the country while generating enough revenue to potentially rid the Massachusetts Turnpike of tolls.

Governor Deval Patrick is also considering a system that would charge drivers based on the miles they travel.

But administration officials, responding yesterday to a leak reported in the media, said the governor also was considering a gas tax increase as low as 5 cents and that no decisions have been made.

The gas tax in Massachusetts is 23.5 cents per gallon, which has not been substantially increased since 1991. A 29-cent increase would bring the state’s tax to 52.5 cents per gallon. New York currently has the nation’s highest state gas tax, at 41.3 cents per gallon.

Patrick last month released a budget that includes a host of tax and fee increases, on everything from candy and soft drinks to alcohol and car registrations. Conspicuously absent was a gas tax increase, which transportation specialists and lawmakers have advocated as the fairest way to solve the state’s chronic shortages of highway and bridge money.

Administration sources refused to speak on the record yesterday or to make any top officials available for interviews, including Transportation Secretary James Aloisi. The Associated Press reported the contents of a draft proposal that included a 27-cent per gallon increase. Two administration officials later said that was only one of many options for an increase that range from 5 cents to 29 cents.

The reports yesterday angered top lawmakers with transportation expertise who have not been briefed by the administration but who have been prodding the governor to take a leadership role on a gas tax for months.

“I come from the school where the number one rule is no surprises,” said Representative Joseph Wagner, a Democrat from Chicopee who has been the House’s top transportation official. “These proposals are surprises. It’s not my preferred way of doing business.

“Perhaps it’s time for the administration to forward to the Legislature a proposal for reform,” he added. “Then we won’t see piecemeal things going on with tolls and taxes without any substance of proposed legislation.”

Senate President Therese Murray, who has not seen any plans and said the governor did not bring it up yesterday in a leadership meeting, also offered a tepid response.

“We’ve been very clear: reform before revenue,” Murray said in an interview. “There hasn’t been any reform. We filed a 268-page reform, and we expect it to be looked at and enacted before we go to revenue.”

In addition to removing tolls, the added gas tax could also be used to pay down the debt of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.

How much debt is paid – and how many tolls are removed – would depend on how much the gas tax is raised, according to administration officials.

Deval Patrick is also considering a new system that would charge drivers based on the miles they travel. Those trips would be measured by a chip installed in a vehicle inspection sticker.

Patrick’s plan would also streamline the state’s myriad transportation agencies into four distinct divisions: highway, rail and transit, aviation, and the Registry of Motor Vehicles. He also plans to outline overhauls to the MBTA’s pension system.

Patrick has downplayed talk of a gas tax increase and sought to focus on toll increases as a way to pay off debt. In recent weeks, he has said that if there was a gas tax, it should be high enough to not only avoid the latest round of toll increases but to remove toll booths completely, or avoid sharp increases in the future.

The Turnpike Authority board gave preliminary approval to toll increases in November that would double cash tolls to $7 at the Sumner and Ted Williams tunnels and raise tolls at the Weston and Allston-Brighton booths to $2 from $1.25.

Former House speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi in November endorsed a gas tax increase instead of toll increases, but his successor, Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, has been less definitive.

“Whether it’s a toll issue, whether it’s a gas tax issue – those all have to be on the table,” DeLeo said in a recent interview. “The days [are over] of saying that no, we can’t have tolls, we can’t have gas tax, we can’t have either.”

Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.

Deval Patrick