Extremist Republicans in Congress Just Voted to Cut Health Care to Fund Tax Cuts for the Rich. Here’s How to Push Back in MA.

Last night, Republicans in the US House voted to advance a budget outline that entails steep cuts to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other essential programs in order to fund tax cuts for billionaires and large corporations.

Their priorities are clear. And so should ours in Massachusetts.

The federal budget fight isn’t over. Every Democrat present voted NO yesterday (that includes MA’s 9-member delegation), and there is still time to block harmful cuts. But MA needs to ensure that, regardless of what Congressional Republicans do and regardless of Elon Musk’s illegal federal funding freezes, we are not cutting essential services. We need to do more to meet the needs of all, not less.

Unfortunately, Governor Healey’s proposed budget would halve the number of mental health case workers, limiting access to essential care. Thankfully, she put a pause on her plans to close two of the state’s mental health hospitals, but more funding will be needed.

And we know how to raise such funds. It’s not by giving tax cuts to rich people and large corporations as our Legislature did two years ago. It’s by ensuring that large corporations are paying their fair share.

That’s why we’re supporting Raise Up Mass’s Corporate Fair Share campaign to ensure that billionaire global corporations like Apple, Google, and Walmart pay their fair share and can’t get away with tax-dodging antics.

Can you email your legislator in support of this important legislation?

Email Your State Legislators

Did you know that Massachusetts taxes a smaller share of offshored corporate income than New Hampshire? An Act Combating Offshore Tax Avoidance (HD.3390/SD.1684) would fix that, bringing us in line with the federal government and other states and raising hundreds of millions of dollars in new annual revenues.

MA needs to combat offshore tax dodging and make the world’s most profitable mega-corporations pay their fair share in state taxes, instead of cutting public services like healthcare and education that we all rely upon.

Statement on Passage of House and Senate Rules

“We are pleased that both the House and Senate have embraced reforms in the Joint Rules that will promote transparency, accountability, and (we hope) timeliness. Although more steps should be taken in the future to guarantee that the public’s work is done in public view, both chambers supported measures to expand access to information and to mitigate the end-of-session bottleneck, changes that resulted from a clear public message that voters demand better from the Legislature. We urge both chambers to come to a swift and comprehensive compromise for Joint Rules for the Session. It has been too long since both chambers agreed on a set of rules, and the legislative process has suffered because of that.

As we approach the month of March with still no committees formed and no bills being heard, we stand out in the country in our legislative delays. There is so much work that needs to get done to be proactive against the threats coming from the Donald Trump – Elon Musk administration, and further delay puts our Commonwealth at risk.

While we eagerly await the finalization of Joint Rules, we recognize that rules are only one element of the legislative process. For our Legislature to truly deliver for everyday people, we need cultural changes throughout the chamber. May new rules be a first step toward that.”

The House and Senate Have Both Adopted New Rules for Themselves. What’s New?

The MA House and Senate have both passed their respective proposals for the Joint Rules, which we discuss here. But both also passed reforms to their own chamber’s rules as well. Let’s explore.

(Want to see the exact text changes? Read here.)

The Senate’s New Rules

  • Making Testimony Public: Regardless of what is agreed to in the Joint Rules, the Senate plans to make testimony submitted to its committees as well as joint committees public, with appropriate redactions for sensitive information. The Senate’s rules previously only addressed testimony for Senate-only committees, and such testimony would only be available upon request.
  • Committee Votes: Senators already make their votes public in Senate-only committees (Ways & Means being the committee with the most of such votes); however, the Senate now plans to publish its members votes in Joint Committees as well. However, the Senate removed the language stipulating the timeliness in which said votes should be published.
  • Summaries of Bills Voted On in Committee: The Senate also plans to make public the summaries of all bills voted on by Senate committees. These summaries often already exist, but for members only.

The House’s New Rules

  • Attendance Records and Requirements: The House will record and publish attendance of committee members at House committee hearings and require in-person attendance from all members, not just the chair.
  • Committee Votes: The House previously only required the reporting of the tallies from committee votes along with the names of those voting no. The new House rules would require all committee members’ votes be recorded and would eliminate the stipulation that committee votes only happen by request of someone at in-person committee meeting (such meetings almost never happen).
  • Reporting Deadline: The House rules include the language around an earlier reporting deadline and rolling deadlines following hearings that the House voted on for the Joint Rules.

PM in the News: “With Mass. House set to vote on its rules, is transparency a priority or a talking point?”

Abigail Pritchard, “With Mass. House set to vote on its rules, is transparency a priority or a talking point?,” New Bedford Light, February 24, 2025.

Jonathan Cohn, the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts, said that this reform would increase efficiency and help supporters of bills know whether their bills are dead or still up for discussion. Most bills die in committee on an unclear timeline, Cohn said.

….

At an action hour on government transparency that Progressive Massachusetts and other organizations hosted Feb. 19, Cohn suggested that the public should have as much time to prepare for a hearing as they need to request time off from work — at least two weeks.

…

Hille and Cohn, of Progressive Massachusetts, credit the growing political movement for transparency with increasing pressure for the proposed rules reforms. Both are hopeful about the House and Senate adopting reforms, but said those can only go so far.

…

Cohn also credits Cambridge’s Evan MacKay with pushing the legislature toward rules reforms. MacKay ran against long-time incumbent Rep. Marjorie Decker last year, losing narrowly after a campaign that criticized the legislature for lack of transparency and consolidation of power. 

“I think that they’re mindful of not wanting to give challengers talking points against them,” Cohn said, “and if that means doing the things that we’re criticizing you for not doing and not making public, I take that as a win.”