Skip to content

MassRetirees.com

Increase font size  Decrease font size  Default font size 
You are here:   Home arrow Legislation arrow Legislative Team Ready For Action
Legislative Team Ready For Action PDF Print E-mail
SEPTEMBER 1999 - With the first quarter of legislative action now complete, our Association's legislative lobbying team is well poised to hit the halls of the State House when the General Court reconvenes in September. To date, several Association bills have progressed through the Committee process.

"So far so good", says Legislative Chairman Bill Hill in describing the Association's early legislative success. "We have seventeen months left to go in this session and I'm confident that we will continue our early success. However, nothing is ever guaranteed."

Of the fifteen bills in the Association's package, eleven remain in active status. The four remaining bills are being studied by the Committee on Public Service.

A handful of bills seem to have generated a great deal of interest from a number of legislators. They are H-319 (pension errors), H-351 (state life insurance), S-1283 (insurance reinstatement), S-1588 (noncontributory taxes), and S-1815 (right to remarry).

Budget Process Continues

Action on Beacon Hill slowed down considerably through July and August as key members of the House and Senate leadership teams engaged in negotiations over the FY 2000 Budget. As is noted in the COLA article, the state's annual fiscal blueprint has been delayed for the past two months as the House and Senate debate in conference committee.

State House observers cite deep philosophical differences as to the scope and size of a potential state tax cut package. House members are interested in reducing the overall tax rate, while members of the Senate support a narrow "targeted" tax cut focusing on low income taxpayers.

Also hanging in the balance is the so called "rule of 90" teachers' early retirement plan. Similar versions of the proposal passed the House and Senate and are being finalized by the conference committee. However, Governor Paul Cellucci is on record stating his intention to veto the proposal due to its cost and the possible negative impact it may have on local school districts.
 
< Prev   Next >