In the summer of 2017, I was working on a film to be shown during the upcoming celebration of the 20th anniversary of the founding of a client of ours, Fishing Partnership Support Services, a non-profit that provides services to commercial fishermen and their family members. One of the persons to be featured was the longtime (and still-serving) state senator from Gloucester, Bruce Tarr, Republican minority leader of the Massachusetts Senate for these past 10-plus years. An interview with him was arranged for a Friday afternoon on the back deck of a restaurant on Gloucester Harbor, before dining hours. I was off-camera, asking questions from a written list. Tarr answered, facing the camera set up behind me. The interview lasted about 40 minutes and yielded more solid content than we'd possibly have room for -- not a bad problem to have.
Tarr answered all of the 15 or so questions substantively and well. But that is not what I remember most about that day. What remains fresh in mind, four years later, was how he answered each question in full sentences and paragraphs that were shaped so well you'd think they were the products of multiple, written revisions. And he did it all off the cuff, no notes in hand, no aide nearby to cue him, and with not a single pause or stray remark.
For media purposes, I've done numerous formal interviews, both audiotaped and videotaped. This was the first where a subject never stopped in the middle of an answer and asked to begin again, or, after concluding a response and thinking about it a bit, asked for a complete do-over because he felt he'd missed the mark and would do much better in a second attempt. Tarr's first take of every answer was the last we'd need.
I was not totally surprised. A member of the bar, Tarr has a warranted reputation as an orator at the State House and across his disparate Senate district (the 1st Essex and Middlesex), which sprawls from Cape Ann to North Andover and from West Newbury to Wilmington. He has the gift of spontaneous eloquence and it never seems to desert him.
The memory of that interview came to me as I was reading the State House News Service account of a July 29 discussion on the Senate floor concerning overrides of items vetoed by Governor Charlie Baker in the new Fiscal Year 2022 state budget.
Specifically, I was caught by the veto of a proposal to delay for one more year implementation of a state income tax deduction of 5% of all charitable donations. Endorsed by the voters in a statewide referendum question nearly 21 years ago, the deduction has been put off repeatedly by legislative fiat, including most recently during House/Senate FY2022 budget deliberations.
On July 29, Minority Leader Tarr was in his normal, required role of pressing the majority party to account for its thinking and decision-making on matters coming up for votes by the full Senate.
Thanks to the State House News Service, we are able to pick up the Senate discussion at the point where Tarr asks Mike Rodrigues, D-Westport, Senate chair of Ways & Means, to explain why Baker's veto of the latest delay in implementing state income tax deductions for donations to charities is wrong and why the Senate should vote to override it.
"I'm hoping," Tarr said, "that this is an area where we (the Senate) can agree with the wisdom and the insight of the governor. I'm hoping we can also benefit from the wisdom and the insight of the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means. I hope my good friend will be able to provide us with his perspective."
Rodrigues responded, "I rise today in opposition to the governor's veto of the one-year delay of the charitable tax deduction. If allowed to go into effect this year, the charitable deduction will cost the Commonwealth $64 million in FY22 and over $300 million each year thereafter.
"While it is true," Rodrigues said, "that our (the state's) fiscal situation has recently improved, we are not out of the woods yet, and the (federal) charitable deduction already provides a very significant incentive (to donate to charities). A one-year delay will allow us to better assess the Commonwealth's long-term stability and further explore a more effective way to support our non-profits."
Tarr retorted that, "...while I appreciate my good friend's explanation of this and his rationale asking for additional delay, I urge all of us to vote to eliminate this particular delay."
He continued:
"It's very interesting. The suggestion is that an additional year would provide us with the ability to have more wisdom and insight relative to this matter, but in fact, we've had nearly 20 years of delay relative to this particular item, an item approved by the voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a margin of 72 percent. Seventy-two percent of the voters of the Commonwealth in 2000 suggested this was a beneficial action to take because it would catalyze the ability to invest in the non-profit organizations of the Commonwealth, which we have repeatedly seen throughout the 20 years during which we have not acted in the way that was mandated by the voters of the Commonwealth are indispensable to the life of our state.
"Madam President (Senate Prez Karen Spilka), what we're talking about here is an item that we should have acted upon a long time ago, and yet, when we were faced with what we thought was going to be a very challenging budget situation not that long ago, it was prudent to say let's postpone this an additional year because we don't want this to be the action that destabilizes the state budget.
"Now, however, it's very clear it would not be the action that destabilizes the budget, given that in Fiscal 2021, we have a projected surplus of $1.5 billion, and in Fiscal 2022, it's projected to grow to $4 billion.
"We're talking about a $64 million amount of money. Over the long term, on an ongoing basis, it's likely to be about $300 million (per year). Madam President, when we think about that, we have to think about it fitting into the context of a budget that is growing, we have to think about growing revenue, and we have to think about why we would postpone this again, after 20 years of delay, and ignore what the voters of the Commonwealth have directed us to do.
"You can't argue it would destabilize the budget, and if you believe that somehow this needs to be revisited, why not give the benefit of the doubt to the non-profit organizations we have heralded repeatedly in this chamber for the work they've been doing? Why wouldn't we give them the benefit of the doubt and take the year to analyze it after we've helped them?
"We have done so many things during the COVID-19 pandemic to try to support the work of organizations like the ones that would benefit from the proceeds of this charitable tax deduction, and yet we speak often of the urgency of keeping them alive, helping them to continue to operate because of what has happened to them throughout the last several months, perhaps the last year. When they were surveyed by the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network, 95 percent of those who responded said they were experiencing or anticipated experiencing impacts as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. Ninety-five percent!
"We have time and again in this chamber, and appropriately so in so many instances, said we need to come to the rescue of agencies and organizations that have helped people through the COVID-19 pandemic. We have done that primarily through the expenditure of state revenue. Should we not also consider on an equal footing foregoing some state revenue so that we can also support them (additionally) with tens of millions of dollars and ultimately hundreds of millions of dollars (in new tax-incentivized contributions)?
"Is this just a choice where we're going to suggest when we spend money to help non-profits, that is something that is desirable, but when we forego revenue so they can have a benefit, that is somehow less important or less desirable or should be disqualified? I don't believe we should.
"There's been some discussion made of who benefits from this particular tax credit, and some have suggested it would benefit high-income taxpayers. It would benefit them because they stand to be able to provide the most resources to the organizations we're trying to assist. Second of all, it's been estimated that among middle- and low-income taxpayers who would benefit from this credit, the number would rise and would total over 600,000 middle- and low-income taxpayers.
"When we talk about the severity of the situation we're trying to respond to with regard to the non-profits, 95% of them that responded to the survey indicated they were experiencing (pandemic) impacts or were expecting to experience impacts. Fifty-two percent of them characterized the severity of the impacts as 'high,' 43% said 'moderate,' and only 5% characterized the impacts as 'low.' Of those that responded, 63% said they're experiencing or anticipate a decrease in their revenues as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. Fourteen percent reported no change and 23% reported that they were unsure. Of the respondents, 31% reported experiencing or anticipating an increase in expenses.
"I can't stress it enough: these are organizations that have been helping people stay warm in their homes, keep food on their tables, have access to health care, and in so many other instances, they have been responding directly to the needs of the people of the Commonwealth. Is their only problem that they're not directly funded through the state budget? I would hope that's not the case.
"If there is a problem with what the voters mandated us to do back in 2000, then it should be the subject of the exhaustive work that's been done around here and apparently still is being done relative to the tax code, but over 20 years, we have not seen an attempt to remove this from the law, to confront it directly, and to say, 'We don't think this is good public policy. We don't think what you (the voters) have directed us to do is appropriate, so let's change it.'
"We saw a set of triggers imposed (relative to a voter-mandated reduction in the state income tax), which we've now reached, when we derailed what voters mandated us to do. We said, 'We know better. Let's take a set of metrics, and if we meet those metrics for prosperity, for revenue, we will allow what you directed us to do to happen.' Those things have happened, which is why, ultimately, after far too long of a delay, the income tax rate was reduced. It's why this (deduction) should occur, as well, because we met the metric when we substituted our judgment for that of the voters of the Commonwealth.
"We shouldn't delay another year -- not another year when we're projecting billions of dollars in surplus and we have non-profit organizations reporting the distress that they're experiencing after the work that they have done that has been so important to our collective response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
"If we want to study this, the best way to do that is to allow it to move forward. Give the benefit of the doubt to the taxpayers, the voters, and the non-profit agencies that deserve to have this go into effect. And with it in effect, we can study its further impact.
"I hope the veto is sustained so that we can support the voters, the taxpayers and the organizations that it is beyond dispute have played a critical role responding to the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic."
This was only one of the speeches on veto overrides Tarr made on July 29. Per usual, he did not write it in advance and read it from a printed text. He prepares well for the day's business and will look at notes on his desk sometimes. But, when addressing the chamber, he will never look at a piece of paper unless asked a question and needs to check something.
When Tarr was done speaking on the override of the veto of the proposed one-year delay in allowing Massachusetts taxpayers to deduct 5% of the cost of charitable contributions, the roll was called. Thirty-four of the 40 senators present (the full complement) voted to override it. Besides Tarr, those voting to sustain the veto were two Republicans, Ryan Fattman of Sutton and Patrick O'Connor of Weymouth, and three Democrats, Diana DiZoglio of Methuen, Marc Pacheco of Taunton, and Walter Timilty of Milton. (Tarr lost the vote, but I believe he won the argument for immediate implementation of the deduction.)
Here's something else to appreciate about Leader Tarr and how he approaches his job.
I am pretty sure he knew before the Senate session on July 29 that he did not have the votes to sustain the governor's veto of the delay in charitable deductions. Still, he made a full, sincere, credible case for immediate implementation. The principle at stake was clearly important to him, as was the matter of loyalty to the leader of his state party. He took his time and said everything he wanted to about the issue in the way he wanted to say it. Then he accepted the rebuff of his peers and moved on.
EPILOGUE: On August 18, Governor Baker filed a bill relative to the allocation of funds from the last fiscal year's budget surplus. The bill includes a section granting a 5% state income tax break on charitable donations, beginning in calendar year 2022. According to a State House News Service article, Baker said, "I think this one's worth another look, and I hope the legislature gives it some serious consideration because, as I said, it's affordable, people voted on it, and many of the organizations that would benefit from this did a lot of really heavy lifting for us all over the course of the last 16 months."
