Voters: Tax the Rich and Big Corporations, Invest More in Transportation

Anybody who has ever waited in a station for perpetually delayed trains, driven through potholes, or sat in traffic congestion for hours on end knows that we have a transportation problem.

Indeed, a report earlier this year found that Boston had the worst rush-hour traffic of any major city. But this isn’t just a Boston issue: voters across the state think that transportation should be a higher priority for the Legislature.

According to a new survey from WBUR and MassINC, 77% of voters support raising new money to invest in the Massachusetts transportation system, with similar numbers across regions.

So what can we do about it?

The WBUR/MassINC poll tested various proposals.

WBUR Poll 2019 Transportation Revenue

The two most popular proposals for raising revenue were value capture and the Transportation Climate Initiative. In the former, the state would collect contributions from real estate development projects near highways or public transportation to help pay for that transportation infrastructure: in other words, the private developers are making a profit due to public investments, and the public deserves to share in that prosperity. Under the TCI, Massachusetts (and other participating states) would charge gasoline distributors a fee based on the amount of pollution their fuels produce.

What do these have in common? They’re taxing corporations. In a Gallup poll from two years ago, 67% of Americans said that corporations were paying too little in taxes.

Those at the bottom — a 15-cent gas tax increase, a hike in RMV fees, and adding tolls for driving to Logan — are directly felt by individuals. We can debate how regressive a gas tax is (the poor are much less likely to spend *any* money on gasoline), but what is clear is that it is not a politically sustainable foundation for revenue by itself.

The Fair Share Amendment, or “millionaire’s tax,” won’t be on the ballot until 2022, but we already know that this 4% surtax on income over $1 million is popular. The latest polling showed it had 69% support.

But we can’t wait until 2023. There are a variety of other ways that we can raise money from corporations and the rich right now.

Raise Up Massachusetts, for instance, is advocating for two in particular. First, we can tax GILTI (Global Intangible Low Taxed Income). Many multinational corporations who do business in MA use provisions of the federal tax code to shift their US profits to offshore tax havens. The federal tax code has provisions to tax some of that income; our state tax code should as well.

Second, many large corporations who do business in MA use various tax breaks and loopholes to pay only the existing corporate minimum tax of $456 per year. That’s right: only $465. We can–and should–create a tiered corporate minimum tax so that that larger corporations pay a minimum in proportion to the size of their business in MA.

Moreover, debates about corporate taxes often suffer from a lack of hard numbers–and that’s because of how evasive corporations are. Stronger rules around corporate disclosure would help identify bad actors in the business community and allow us to measure the effects of the loopholes in our existing corporate tax rules.

But why stop there?

If we’re talking about transportation, we can eliminate the absurd tax exemption for the sale and purchase of airplanes. It makes sense to exempt necessary goods from the sales tax, but last I checked, airplanes aren’t necessary personal goods.

We could also raise the capital gains tax. The highest-income 1 percent of households receive approximately 80 percent of capital gains income in Massachusetts, while the bottom 80 percent of households receive only 3 percent. And these high-income individuals clearly reap a benefit from our infrastructure investments: without them, how would they or their employees get to work or to meetings, and how would the goods and services on which their incomes depend get to market?

MassBudget has even more ideas, which they spelled out earlier this year here.

Overall, though, the message should be clear. We need to start investing more in our infrastructure, and in a wealthy state like ours, the rich and big corporations need to pay up.

Withdrawal: Never an Effective Strategy

show me receipts

If we actually had mandatory sex ed in MA, everyone would know that withdrawal is not effective. As it stands, it remains one of the most popular strategies in the Massachusetts Legislature. Legislators file amendments only to withdraw them without discussion or debate.

If you were paying attention to the Senate budget debate last week or the House budget debate last month (You probably weren’t! There’s a lot going on!), then you may have noticed such a lack of robust debate or contentious votes.

Of the 36 recorded votes taken by the State Senate, 25 were unanimous. Most others just had one or two dissenting votes. Hardly controversial stuff.

Of the 15 recorded votes taken by the House, 10 were unanimous, and another 3 just had one dissenting vote.

Here at Progressive Massachusetts, we’re big fans of recorded votes. Ironically, such unanimity is a reason why a recorded vote could actually not be necessary in a given circumstance. If everyone agrees on a few extra thousand dollars for a good program, a recorded vote is just fodder for a press release, rather than a basis for real accountability.

Several senators spoke on the Senate floor about the need for new revenue (due credit to Senators Jamie Eldridge, Sonia Chang-Diaz, Jo Comerford, and Becca Rausch), but there were no votes about raising additional revenue. And in the House, there was even less discussion–and again no votes.

Give Me the Receipts

If a budget is a statement of values, why is there so little debate?

One of the reasons is that most of the amendments that would truly raise moral issues about the budget (the lack of revenue, insufficient funding in key programs, etc.) get withdrawn, or, in the House side, they get “consolidated” and hollowed out of all content (more on the “consolidation” process another day).

This issue isn’t unique to the budget, either. When the Legislature takes up major bills, many of the amendments get withdrawn without discussion or debate (let alone vote).

Just check out the four examples from last session below.

Amendment Withdrawal

So why would a legislator withdraw an amendment?

There are three common reasons:

  1. Pressure from colleagues
  2. Pressure from Leadership
  3. Fear of a bad message if an amendment were to fail

(1) and (2) both stem from the same root: the fact that most legislators don’t want to be put on record. Having recorded votes means that they have to take a side on sometimes controversial issues, and that means that at least some of their constituents will be unhappy. Maybe they are more progressive than their district and afraid of getting calls from rabid right-wingers. Much more likely they are much more conservative than their district and don’t want constituents contented with an image of Massachusetts’s liberalism to know. And they will press upon an amendment’s filers to make sure that no vote happens.

Regarding (2), Leadership can often promise a real debate later or a bit of extra funding for a favored program now (or threaten loss of key perks) to get a legislator to withdraw an amendment. For decades, legislators have been withdrawing righteous amendments while promises from leadership have gone unfulfilled. And yet, progressive legislators keep falling for the same trick.

(2) and (3) also stem from a misunderstanding of how power works. Too many legislators see power only from the lens of the Golden Dome. But any legislator’s power ultimately comes from their constituents. And their constituents want to see them be champions. Their constituents want well-funded schools, well-funded public transit, clean water and air, sound investments in all kinds of infrastructure, etc., etc. Their constituents probably think Massachusetts is a liberal bastion, and so we should make it just that. If legislators take hard votes, then their constituents will have their backs. And if a vote for popular progressive policy were to fail, their constituents aren’t going to turn their backs on the policy; they will know which legislators to target and to pressure and know how to organize for the next fight. Because, to be short, that’s how politics works.

MA legislators just voted again to disenfranchise people in prison. And the vote wasn’t even public.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MAY 3, 2019 Joint statement from Act on Mass, Progressive Massachusetts, and the Emancipation Initiative

Mass. legislature rejects voting rights for the incarcerated

As the national discourse around the question of restoring voting rights for those incarcerated heated up, the Massachusetts legislature also quietly took up the issue.  The Joint Committee on Election Laws voted on Thursday April 25th to reject a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights for the incarcerated.

Incarcerated people in Massachusetts weren’t always disenfranchised, and the 1974 Supreme Judicial Court case Evers v. Davoren ruled that citizens incarcerated in Massachusetts must be given equal access to absentee ballots to vote.  It wasn’t until 2001 that Massachusetts disenfranchised those incarcerated for felonies, after the Massachusetts legislature initiated a process to amend the State Constitution to take away their voting rights while in prison. The process required two votes of the legislature before it could advance to a ballot question. A Republican filed the original bill, but Democrats were more than happy to go along with it judging by the overwhelming vote counts in favor: the first vote in 1998 was 155-34, and the second vote in 2000 was 144-45.

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley pointed out that it wasn’t until prisoners at MCI Norfolk started to organize a political action committee in 1997 to organize for better conditions through electoral pressure, that our State government leapt into action to disenfranchise them.  “People who are incarcerated are closest to the problem and therefore closest to the solution. In order to have meaningful criminal justice reform in this state, we must ensure that those most impacted have a seat at the table. Returning the right to vote to people who are incarcerated on felony convictions is that first foundational step,” said Rachel Corey, an organizer with the Emancipation Initiative. 

Certain elected officials have publicly stated they voted against this action, including Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa of Northampton and Senator Jamie Eldridge of Acton.  But no roll call vote for the 17-person committee was available at time of this release. Act On Mass has reached out to every committee member inquiring how they voted and will provide updates as they learn more. 

“The committee doubled down on the legislature’s decision to disenfranchise the incarcerated last week. And we don’t know how our elected officials voted, or even how close the vote was.  Democracy can’t function if voters don’t know how their representatives vote, and advocates can’t even make progress on lobbying the members of the committee if they don’t know who agrees with them and who disagrees with them,” said Matthew Miller, co-founder of Act on Mass, a group that advocates for progressive policies and transparency on Beacon Hill.

The legislature considered a proposal earlier this year to change its rules so that all committee votes are published online, but the proposal did not make it into the joint rules of the legislature.

“We are very disappointed that the Joint Election Laws Committee chose not to take this important step in strengthening our democracy and the hold of mass incarceration on our policymaking. In last year’s criminal justice reform bill, the Legislature expressed an interest in focusing on rehabilitation. Allowing prisoners to participate in elections would strengthen their ties to the community, increase their sense of social responsibility, and facilitate their reintegration upon release,” said Jonathan Cohn, Chair of the Issues Committee at Progressive Massachusetts. “Let’s be clear. Given the inequities in our criminal justice system, this is part and parcel of our country’s shameful history of trying to disenfranchise minority voters.” ########################

Act on Mass has contacted every member of the Joint Committee on Election Laws to ask them to share their vote on this issue. As of this writing, the following legislators have responded:

  • Senator Barry Finegold (voted AGAINST amendment to re-enfranchise the incarcerated)
  • Senator Jamie Eldridge (voted FOR amendment)
  • Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz (voted FOR amendment)
  • Representative Russell Holmes (voted FOR amendment)
  • Representative Lindsay Sábados (voted FOR amendment)
  • Senator Ryan Fattman (voted AGAINST) amendmen

We are awaiting a response from:

  • Senator Brendan Crighton (Lynn)
  • Senator Edward Kennedy (Lowell)
  • Representative John Lawn (Watertown)
  • Representative Bill Driscoll (Milton)
  • Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier (Pittsfield)
  • Representative Alan Silvia (Fall River)
  • Representative Steven Ultrino (Malden)
  • Representative Dan Carey (Easthampton)
  • Representative Kathleen LaNatra (Kingston)
  • Representative Nicholas Boldyga (Southwick)
  • Representative Marc Lombardo (Billerica)

Top 10 Excuses You’ll Hear for Why Your Legislator Voted Against Transparency

No Excuses

Last week, the Massachusetts House voted down three common sense transparency amendments to its rules package.

These amendments were simple good government proposals, requiring that…

  • Representatives be given a reasonable amount of time to read the final language of any bill they’re voting on
  • Representatives be given a reasonable amount of time to read any amendment submitted on the floor that they’ll be voting on
  • Hearing testimony (for/against) a bill and all votes taken in committee to be publicly available.

Yet they all failed, as most rank-and-file Democrats voted with House Leadership against them.

If you’ve reached out to your representatives since, they’ve probably given you a number of excuses. Spoiler: They’re not very good ones.

NO Excuses

(1)  “Requiring more time for Legislators to read bills would just create unnecessary delays. my constituents routinely tell me that we need to be doing more.”

The slow pace of legislative progress in the House is a confounding and deliberate choice–of legislators’ (and especially House Leadership’s) own making. Leadership sets the agenda and the pace: Hearings that take months to be scheduled, repeatedly missed deadlines for reporting bills out of committee, and a final month of a 2-year session packed with a flurry of  major bills. This is all by choice, and not out of necessity (recall the lightning speed with which the legislature drafted, debated, passed the “Upskirting” bill). There is no reason they can’t start the real work three days earlier. Better yet, they could start a year and a half earlier and not find themselves in such a time crunch at the end.

(2)  “By a time a bill comes to the floor, there has been a tremendous amount of public input already. So giving more time for experts, advocates, and the public to read it is just superfluous!”  

This is a loose interpretation of the word “public.” The drafting of a bill happens behind closed doors, which only high-ranking legislators and well-financed lobbyists can get behind. Even rank and file legislators do not have access to this process, and there is no record of whose input is actually being incorporated. It is important for experts, advocates, and constituents to be able to offer input as well.

(3)  “This would create an opportunity for obstruction. A Republican state rep like Jim Lyons could file amendment after amendment, clogging up the process and taking days of our time.”

First of all, Jim Lyons was defeated last November. That point aside, the uninformed chaos of floor amendments could be avoided if amendments were filed well in advance of debate and voting. Moreover, if a legislator were seeking to be obstructive, there is already a backstop: the House routinely suspends its own rules anyway, and it would just need an (easily attainable) 2/3 majority to do so. Amendment #2 would have required that this suspension be done by a roll call vote, providing a public record of who judged the amendments to be gratuitous and unworthy of a serious reading, but it would still be perfectly possible.

(4)  “This is a solution in search of a problem. We already have enough time to read what we’re voting on.”

Last year, the House voted to authorize the creation of community benefit districts the very same day the bill was reported out of House Ways & Means Committee. The bill would have let wealthy property owners in residential and commercial areas impose taxes on their neighbors and privatize public spaces. Many members had no idea what they were voting on, having been given favorable talking points but few details. Only after the House passed the bill were organizations like the ACLU, Common Cause, the NAACP, and the Mass Law Reform Institute able to rally the public to action.

The “Grand Bargain” deal passed by the Legislature last summer (in order to avoid a $15 minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, and a sales tax reduction being on the November ballot ) was voted on the very same day it was reported out of the House Ways & Means Committee – indeed, just one hour after activists from the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition, which was behind the $15 minimum wage and paid leave ballot questions, were given the language and well before the 100+ group coalition had finished reading and debating it.

In both cases, the rule granting representatives 24 hours to read a bill was suspended, and this was not because legislators had all finished reading. Indeed, even by extending the window to 72 hours, the House could still suspend the requirement; however, Amendment #1 would again require them to do so by roll call, meaning representatives would have to justify to their constituents why they felt such a suspension was appropriate.

(5)  “Committees should be able to set their own rules, and wouldn’t these rules cause an undue burden for already overworked and underpaid staff?”

The House Rules *already* set standards by which committees must operate. Requiring two additional steps of transparency – the publication of testimony and the publication of committee votes – is fully in line with that. Establishing basic parameters for a committee is not undue interference with its operation.

Moreover, in January 2017, the Massachusetts Legislature voted for a pay hike that increased the pay, stipends, and office expense budgets of committee chairmen. It is fully within their ability to increase the pay of their staff; indeed, they should.

(6)  “All hearing testimony is already public.”

Sure. But very difficult to participate in and to access.

Yes, anyone who is able to come to downtown Boston to attend a hearing in the middle of the workday is able to listen to the testimony. That is no substitute for publishing submitted testimony online, like Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin do.

Furthermore, a great deal of testimony is submitted in writing – in fact, the committees encourage it. Even representatives who are not members of the committee have been denied access to this testimony by some committees. If even rank and file legislators can’t get it, experts, advocates, and the public certainly can’t.

(7)  “All of my votes are already public.”

Ha! First of all, publicly recorded floor votes are VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND especially on the House side. (For more on this issue, check out our Scorecard website FAQs).

But we’re not talking about floor votes; we’re talking about committee votes. And those are not actually available online.  

(8)  “I’m new here, and who am I to say how the chamber should operate? Isn’t that presumptuous?”

So House Leadership has convinced you of their power and the absence of yours. Interesting, don’t you think?

The Legislature does not belong to the Speaker, the Majority Leader, or any other member of House Leadership. It belongs to the people. It is only to their constituents that legislators are accountable because their constituents are the ones who elected – and will decide whether to re-elect – them.  

(9)  “I’m playing a long game. If I vote for this, then I’ll end up on the Speaker’s bad side, and I won’t be able to push any of the priorities that we both care about.”

Many representatives have been saying this for years. But given how important bills keep hitting the same roadblocks session after session, the strategy of going along to get along is certainly not a proven winner. The only reason the Speaker has that kind of control in the first place is the lack of transparency and accountability inherent in the House’s standard practices. The only way to fix structural problems is with changes in structure, and your constituents will certainly have your back.

(10) “But this will mean I’ll just get more calls from constituents.”

Yes, that is called democracy.

If You Want a Different Outcome, You Need to Change the Rules of the Game

The Massachusetts General Court is the second oldest deliberative body of the world. It’s time for it to start living up to such a stature.

Opaque processes and procedures are the standard operating procedure in the Legislature, leaving the public—and even many legislators—in the dark while monied interests exert sway behind closed doors. And an over-centralization of power encourages a culture of quiescence and retaliation, discouraging open debate on major issues—a problem especially acute in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Real reform will be impossible without changes to both rules and norms.

And with the MA House set to vote on its rules for the 191st legislative session tomorrow, we have a few good ideas about measures the House could adopt.

(1) Read What You’re Voting On

PROBLEM: When legislators don’t have the time to do their due diligence, bad legislation can easily slip through. Take, for example, the House’s vote last year on a bill authorizing what’s called “community benefit districts.” That bill would have enabled wealthy property owners to essentially “own” public spaces and impose fees on other property owners in the district with or without their approval, all with zero safeguards for civil liberties and equal access. Representatives only learned that a vote was going to take place on the bill the day of the vote itself, providing no time for legislators to read the fine print or consult with experts. The result? It sailed through almost unanimously, with representatives only realizing what they actually voted on afterwards.

SOLUTION: Bills should be made available to House members and the public, in the form in which they were most recently reported from committee, at least 72 hours (three days) before being considered on the floor. Legislators, experts, advocates, and engaged community members then have the opportunity to more thoroughly evaluate a bill, and legislators will better understand what they are actually voting on.

The same standard – read what you’re voting on – should also apply to amendments. When a bill is being considered, representatives should get at least 30 minutes to review the text of any new amendment before having to vote on it.

(2) Know What You’re Voting On – and Who’s Behind the Bill

PROBLEM: Legislators don’t have the staff (or time) to attend every single hearing on every single bill, and can thus be left with only a cursory understanding of what a bill does and who the main forces behind it are.

Hearings, at least, are public, unlike much of the legislative process. When negotiations happen behind closed doors, other legislators and the public are left in the dark about how a bill is changed and who is lobbying for those changes. Take, for example, the case in 2017 when the House Ways & Means Committee watered down a bill to protect pregnant women in the workplace – with no legislator or lobby group taking ownership of the change.

SOLUTION: Committee staff are already doing a lot of work compiling information on a bill, so that information should be made available to all legislators and the public. As is the norm in a number of other state legislatures, bills reported out of an “issue area” committee should be accompanied by substantive reports with a) a summary of the arguments advanced pro/con at the bill hearing and in written testimony submitted; b) a list of organizations and individuals that testified pro/con on the bill; c) a list of organizations and individuals that met or otherwise communicated with the Committee Leadership. And when a bill gets reported out of a committee like Ways & Means or Third Reading, those reports should also include an explanation of any changes made to the bill.

(3) Show Your Vote

PROBLEM: Of the thousands of bills that get filed at the start of a session, comparatively few get passed in either chamber, let alone being signed into law. Most bills end up dying in the committee stage – whether voted down, sent to further study (i.e., indefinitely tabled – the study never happens), or discharged to another committee (where they then flounder). When a bill dies in committee, all legislators are left with clean hands, since no recorded vote is made available for the decision. Indeed, the House evades its own stated rules around making these recorded votes available by polling votes electronically instead of in person. This leaves legislators outside of the committee—and the public—in the dark about what is happening on important pieces of legislation.

SOLUTION: The state legislatures in a majority of US states publish roll call votes from committees online, and so should ours. A recorded vote should be taken (and published) whenever a committee makes a decision, whether to give a bill a favorable/negative report, “send it to further study,” or discharge it.

CommonWealth: A resolution for Legislature: Finish last year’s work

“A resolution for Legislature: Finish last year’s work” — Jonathan Cohn, CommonWealth 

DATE: 12/29/2018 

IN A FEW short days, the next legislative session in the Massachusetts State House will begin. New legislators will be sworn in. The governor will give his State of the State address. The mad dash to file bills and secure co-sponsorships will start—and end—in the blink of an eye.

But we’re not there yet. Now is the time for reflections on the past and aspirations for the new. And in that spirit, I’d like to propose a New Year’s resolution for the Massachusetts Legislature: finish last year’s business.

The Legislature will have a lot on its table soon, and indeed, new issues arise all the time. But if they want to avoid the chaotic spectacle that the final days of a legislative session too often are, then it’s good to start early.

Read the rest here.

Taking Stock of the 190th Legislative Session

In January of 2017, Progressive Massachusetts unveiled our legislative agenda for the 190th legislative session — 17 items for 2017 (and 2018). As we near the end of the year — and the start of the next legislative session, it’s the perfect time to take stock of how the various bills fared.

Clear Victories

Reproductive Rights

The ACCESS bill, which updates MA’s contraceptive coverage equity law to require insurance carriers to provide all contraceptive methods without a copay, passed overwhelmingly in the Legislature and was signed by the Governor.

Democracy

Massachusetts became the 13th state to adopt Automatic Voter Registration. In this reform pioneered by Oregon in 2015, eligible voters who interface with select government agencies (here, the RMV or MassHealth) are automatically registered to vote unless they decline. With more than 700,000 eligible citizens in MA unregistered, AVR will increase the accuracy, security, and comprehensiveness of voter rolls.

The bill also enrolls Massachusetts in Electronic Registration Information Center, a coalition of states founded by the Pew Research Center that enable states to synchronize their voter rolls. ERIC has increased the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the voter rolls in participating states.

[Note: The original bill included smaller social services government agencies as well. The final bill allows for their later inclusion but focuses on the two largest sources of possible new registrants.]

Steps Forward

Criminal Justice Reform

The comprehensive criminal justice reform bill passed by the Legislature in April incorporated some elements from our priority bills (Read our write-up here):

  • Eliminating most mandatory minimums for retail drug selling and drug paraphernalia and limiting mandatory minimums in school zones to cases involving guns or minors. [Note: PM and advocates had sought the elimination of all mandatory minimums. The bill, however, left in place mandatory minimums for Class A drugs (like heroin), expanded this definition to include opioids like fentanyl and carfentanil, and created a new mandatory minimum for assaulting a police officer, an overused charge wielded as a threat against protesters.]
  • Raising the felony-larceny threshold from $250 to $1,200 [Note: PM and other advocates had sought $1,500.]
  • Reducing fines and fees [Note: PM and other advocates wanted probation and parole fees fully eliminated.]
  • Establishing a process for expunging records, especially for juveniles convicted of minor offenses

There is still work to be done–from raising the age of criminal majority to severely curtailing (or outright abolishing) solitary confinement. That said, the bill, despite its shortcomings, was a step in the right direction.

Fight for $15

At the start of the session, we supported legislation to raise the minimum wage from $11 to to $15 by 2021, raise the tipped minimum wage from $3.75 to $15.75 by 2025, and require the minimum wage to increase with inflation starting in 2022.

The Raise Up Massachusetts coalition’s ballot initiative was slightly more modest in its ambition, extending the full phase-in date one year (due to a later start) and raising the minimum wage for tipped employees to only $9 (60% of the minimum wage) by 2022.

What passed in the ultimate “Grand Bargain,” an effort of the Legislature and the Governor to avoid three ballot initiatives ($15 minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, sales tax reduction) was more modest still. It raised the minimum wage to $15 by 2023, raised the tipped minimum wage to only $6.75, and dropped indexing. Unfortunately, the Legislature included a further concession to the business lobby, agreeing to phase-out time-and-a-half on Sundays and holidays. Although the bill is a net win for workers in Massachusetts, it’s possible that, due to the phase-out of time-and-a-half, some workers will be left worse off.

Fight for 15 Original Bill vs Ballot Initiative vs Final Grand Bargain Text

Paid Family and Medical Leave

The version of paid family and medical leave passed in the aforementioned “Grand Bargain” was less robust than the original legislation and the ballot initiative text, but still more robust than the programs that exist in other states.

PFML Senate Bill vs Ballot Initiative vs Final Grand Bargain Text

Senate Victory, House Opposition

Several of our priority bills succeeded, or made partial progress, in the Senate, only to flounder in the House amidst fierce opposition from the conservative House leadership.

Fully Funding Our Schools

Massachusetts’s 25-year-old education funding formula is short-changing our schools $1-2 billion per year due to outdated assumptions about the costs of health care, special education, ELL (English Language Learners) education, and closing racial and economic achievement gaps.

The 2015 Foundation Budget Review Commission recommended a path forward for fixing it. The Senate unanimously adopted a bill to implement them. The House, however, insisted on leaving English Language Learners, Black and Brown students, and poor students (not mutually exclusive categories) behind.

Protecting Our Immigrant Friends and Neighbors

Despite Massachusetts’s liberal reputation, our Legislature has been historically hostile to strengthening protections for our immigrant community.

The Senate included four provisions from the Safe Communities Act, a bill that our members fought strongly for, in its FY 2019 budget: (1) a prohibition on police inquiries about immigration status, a prohibition on certain collaboration agreements between local law enforcement and ICE, (3) a guarantee of basic due process protections, and (4) a prohibition on participation in a Muslim registry. The amendment was a win-win for both rights and safety, but House Leadership opposed its inclusion in the final budget.

Bold Action on Climate Change

Many elements from our priority environmental legislation were incorporated in the Senate’s impressive omnibus bill:

  • Building on the Global Warming Solutions Act by setting intermediate emissions targets for 2030 and 2040
  • Establishing a 3% annual increase in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to accelerate our commitment to renewable energy
  • Prohibiting a “pipeline tax” on energy consumers
  • Instructing the governor’s office to develop carbon pricing for the transportation sector by the end of 2020, for commercial buildings and industrial processes by 2021, and for residential buildings by the end of 2022 (not as strong as a revenue-positive carbon pricing scheme, but still in the right direction)

However, the House proved a roadblock yet again. The ultimate compromise energy legislation included only a 2% increase from 2020 to 2030, after which it would fall back to the current 1%. This would take us to only 56% renewable energy by 2050 instead of 100%.

Loss…But a Battle Not Over

Revenue & Reinvestment

Progressive Mass members played a major role in the signature collection for the Fair Share amendment (or “millionaires tax”), which would have created a 4% surtax on income above $1 million (inflation-adjusted) to fund education and transportation investment.

As a citizen-originated ballot initiative for a constitutional amendment, the Fair Share amendment had to receive the support of at least 25% of the Legislature in two constitutional conventions. It secured well more than double this amount, but the Supreme Judicial Court struck it from the ballot this June.

Inaction

Medicare for All

Although the Senate took modest steps in the direction of single payer, passing legislation to create a public option (a MassHealth buy-in) and require a study of whether a single payer system would save money relative to the current system, the House took no such action.

Housing Production

Although the Senate passed a comprehensive zoning reform bill to increase housing production in the suburbs last session, no such action was taken in either house this session.

Debt/tuition-free Higher Education

The cost of higher education has grown a lot in Massachusetts, and the Legislature continues to punt.

In Conclusion: We won some, we lost some, and we’ll keep on fighting.

Four Weeks Until Election Day

Election Day is just four weeks away. That’s right: 28 days.

Ballot Question Endorsements: YES-YES-YES

Massachusetts voters will see three questions on the ballot when they go to vote in four weeks. Progressive Massachusetts is recommending that you vote YES-YES-YES.

Progressive Massachusetts has been a part of the Freedom for All Massachusetts coalition since the legislative push the session before last, but before taking a position on Questions 1 and 2, we polled our members–the ultimate decision-makers in our organization. Our members overwhelmingly voted to say Yes  on 1 and Yes on 2 as well.

Here’s why:

Why Yes on 1: In Massachusetts, there is no law and no limit governing the number of patients that can be assigned to a nurse at one time (aside from the Intensive Care Unit). Overworked nurses and understaffed hospitals lead to more complications, readmissions, and errors. Nurses aren’t able to thrive at their work, and patients aren’t able to get the care they deserve. Everyone deserves high-quality working conditions, and everyone deserves the best health care our state can offer.

Why Yes on 2: On the local, state, and federal level, we see time and time again how the outsize role of money in politics distorts democracy. A Yes on Question 2 would send a powerful statement to elected officials and to other states that Massachusetts voters want to see real action on campaign finance reform.

Why Yes on 3: Because everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Because every young person deserves a chance to succeed in school and prepare for their future — including young people who are transgender. Because we are better than fear, bigotry, and transphobia. To name a few.

Some More Endorsements: Senator Elizabeth Warren & AG Maura Healey

Our members overwhelmingly voted to endorse Elizabeth Warren and Maura Healey for re-election.

Why Elizabeth Warren? Let’s turn it over to our members?

“Elizabeth Warren has been a champion in Washington for all in a very dark and scary time in U.S politics. Her voice, her actions and her persistence are needed now more than ever.”

“MA voters should know that Senator Warren has our back.”

“Senator Warren is a leader for government of the people, by the people and for the people. She stands up to wealthy corporations (who are not people) and the oligarchs who are continuing to strangle democracy in the United States.”

And why Maura Healey?

“Absolutely the people’s attorney… She is a great watchdog for the people and a great bull dog against President Trump and his policies.”

“Maura Healey has been in the forefront of the resistance to the Trump administrating since the first day.”

“Among the leaders in holding pharmaceutical manufacturers accountable for the opioid crisis.”

We agree!

One more DA Endorsement: John Bradley, Plymouth County

As countless stories from right here in Massachusetts and around the country have shown, a District Attorney has a lot of power. Too often, DAs have used that power in favor of mass incarceration and the attendant racial and economic disparities. From overcharging to lobbying against criminal justice reform, DAs have proven themselves to be an obstacle.

We’ve been working with the Justice for Massachusetts coalition to elect progressive DAs–and then hold them accountable. JFM endorsed John Bradley for Plymouth County DA, and our members voted to do so as well.

John is committed to:

  • Abolishing cash bail
  • Taking illegally possessed firearms off the streets
  • Shifting strategy for dealing with drug addiction to medical-based solutions rather than criminalization
  • Meeting regularly with community leaders and instituting accountability checks
  • Increasing data transparency from the DA’s office to the community

John’s experience as a career prosecutor for over 30 years in Plymouth and Worcester Counties, as well as in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, equips him to implement progressive change to restore ethics, compassion, and common sense to the important public safety work of the DA’s Office.

2018 Ballot Questions: Why We’re a YES – YES – YES

Ballot Questions

On November 6, Massachusetts voters will see three questions on their ballot. Progressive Massachusetts recommends YES-YES-YES.

Question 1: Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative

Recommendation: Vote YES.

Yes on 1 2018

What a Yes Would Do: Question 1 would limit the number of patients that can be assigned to each registered nurse in Massachusetts hospitals and certain other health care facilities. The maximum number of patients would vary by type of unit and level of care (see the breakdown here). The enforcement of the measure would be suspended during a public health emergency as declared by the state or nationally.

Have Other States Done This?: California is currently the only state to have implemented fixed nurse-to-patient ratios. Doomsday scenarios have not come to pass, job satisfaction among nurses has gone up, and readmissions have gone down. You can read more here:

Why You Should Vote Yes: In Massachusetts, there is no law and no limit governing the number of patients that can be assigned to a nurse at one time (aside from the Intensive Care Unit). Overworked nurses and understaffed hospitals lead to more complications, readmissions, and errors. Nurses aren’t able to thrive at their work, and patients aren’t able to get the care they deserve. More time with your nurse means better care for you.

Who is Supporting Q1: A wide coalition of labor groups, community groups, and progressive elected officials — See the full list here. The No on Question 1 campaign is being funded by mega-rich hospital executives (read more here). Which side are you on?

Question 2: Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative

Recommendation: Vote YES.

Yes on 2 2018

What a Yes Would Do: Question 2 would create a 15-member citizens commission tasked with proposing amendments to the US Constitution, specifically regarding overturning Citizens United and defining inalienable constitutional rights as belonging to individual living human beings, not artificial entities or collections of human beings. The commission would create reports onpolitical and election spending in Massachusetts; the legal ability of the state government to regulate corporations; and proposals for federal constitutional amendments and actions recommended for advancing the proposed amendments. Read the full text here.

Who Would Sit on the Commission?: Any citizen residing in Massachusetts would be eligible to serve, and the commissioners would be unpaid. The commissioners would be appointed by the Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and Senate President (each of whom would appoint 3 members).

When Would It Take Effect?: The measure would take effect on January 1, 2019, and the commission’s first report would be due on December 31, 2019.

Why You Should Vote Yes: On the local, state, and federal level, we see time and time again how the outsize role of money in politics distorts democracy. A Yes on Question 2 would send a powerful statement to elected officials and to other states that Massachusetts voters want to see real action on campaign finance reform.

Who is Suporting Q2: See a list of endorsing individuals and organizations here.

Question 3: Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum

Recommendation: Yes

Yes on 3 2018

What a Yes Would Do: A “yes” vote on Question 3 supports upholding the landmark 2016 bill that that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public places. The law requires access to areas segregated based on gender—such as bathrooms and locker rooms—to be allowed according to an individual’s self-identified gender identity. In short, the law is about the right of trans people to exist in public space.

Why Is This Even on the Ballot?: Reactionaries in this state collected enough signatures to do so because they want to take our state backwards. This is the first time in decades that Massachusetts has had a citizens veto referendum on the ballot. What that means is that when you enter the ballot box, you–the voter–should act as though you are the governor being presented with this bill. A yes is a vote to sign it. A no is a vote to veto it.

Why You Should Vote Yes: Because everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Because every young person deserves a chance to succeed in school and prepare for their future — including young people who are transgender. Because we are better than fear, bigotry, and transphobia. To name a few.

Who is Supporting Q3: Check out the coalition partners here.

How You Can Help: Find volunteer opportunities on the Freedom for All Massachusetts website here.

About Our Process

Progressive Massachusetts has been a part of the Freedom for All Massachusetts coalition since the legislative push the session before last, but before taking a position on Questions 1 and 2, we polled our members–the ultimate decision-makers in our organization. Our members overwhelmingly voted to say Yes  on 1 and Yes on 2 as well.