Some Budging on the Budget–But Austerity Still Reigns

Last Tuesday, after only two days of debate, the House approved its budget for FY 2018 on a nearly unanimous vote of House 159-1. Republican Jim Lyons of Andover was the sole dissenting vote.

If some of the House’s most conservative Republicans are willing to vote for a budget, you know it’s not particularly ambitious. State House News Service described it as “the latest in a string of austerity budgets,” and they were right. Even though an additional $77 million was added during the amendment process (bringing the budget to $40.8 billion), the budget still entrenches a pattern of underinvestment in public transit, public education, and the vital social services that are the foundation of a thriving and equitable economy.

Budget season in the House tends to follow a particular script. Amendments from progressive representatives proposing new revenue or creative new ideas will be withdrawn, often without floor debate. Amendments from Republicans will be debated on the floor and then “sent to further study,” i.e., tabled indefinitely. And the leadership will decide behind closed doors which line item increases will get into the final budget, bundling them into large, omnibus amendments. Votes, including that on the final budget, will mostly be either party-line or (nearly) unanimous (with occasional splits in the Republican caucus or defections from the likes of Colleen Garry of Dracut or James Dwyer of Weymouth on the Democratic side).

This dynamic was largely on display last week.

Unfortunately, the two revenue amendments from Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville) we had supported were withdrawn–although we commend Rep. Provost along with Reps. Ruth Balser (D-Newton), Tricia Farley-Bouvier (D-Pittsfield), Cory Atkins (D-Concord), and Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge)for speaking on behalf of the income tax freeze amendment on the floor. It is rare to see progressive amendments actually see floor debate.

What happened to the others? On housing, Rep. Paul Donato (D-Medford)’s amendment to increase Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) by $20 million did not make it into the budget. Part of of Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge)’s MRVP amendment made it into the final budget (allowing the use of MRVP funds for a voucher management program), but the more important parts of the amendment (requiring the agency to issue new vouchers sooner in the fiscal year and increasing voucher rent caps to current fair market rent standards) were not.

Rep. Alice Peisch (D-Wellesley)’s amendment to increase the funding for the Early Rate Reserve to $20 million from $15 million made it into the final budget. Rep. Paul Brodeur (D-Melrose) had sought to bring the funding for YouthWorks to $13.5 million; it ended up at $10.75 million instead, counting earmarks.

Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Newton) had advocated for increasing the funding for the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, which ensures that low-income residents of Massachusetts have access to legal information, advice, and representation, to $21 million from $19.5 million. The final House budget included $20 million–better but not good enough. Rep. Mary Keefe (D-Worcester)’s amendment to increase funding for crucial programs to combat recidivism and create opportunities from $250,000 to $2 million did not make it into the final budget at all.

Rep. David Rogers (D-Cambridge)’s amendment had sought to increase the operations budget for DEP from $24.4 million to $30 million. Just $500,000 extra made it into the final budget, hardly sufficient.

Rep. Carole Fiola (D-Fiola)’s amendment had sought to increase the family planning services line item to $5.8 million. It ended up at $5,678,797.

Now on to the Senate, where the fight continues….

Beacon Hill, How About a Raise for Massachusetts Workers, Too?

A new legislative session in the Legislature typically kicks off with a string of votes setting the rules for the following two years.

But this year, before taking up the rules (or even finalizing offices and committee assignments), the House and Senate voted to raise the salaries and stipends for ranking legislative officers (such as Senate President Stan Rosenberg and House Speaker Robert DeLeo, among others), state constitutional officers (Governor Charlie Baker, AG Maura Healey, etc.), and judges.

And then the Thursday before last, both chambers easily overrode Governor Baker’s veto, with dissent coming from Republicans, a handful of conservative Democrats, and a trio of progressive Democrats (Jon Hecht of Watertown, Denise Provost of Somerville, and Mike Connolly of Cambridge).

Let’s be clear: paying public servants well is important to good governance.

If such offices are not well-compensated, then only those who are already well-off will be interested in running or serving.

And sufficient compensation can also reduce the need for legislators to have jobs on the side, a Pandora’s box of ethics conflicts.

Nonetheless, given the details and the context of the pay raise, it should be no surprise that it has rubbed many progressive voters the wrong way.

Process

First of all, the bill was rushed through at the start of the session without the deliberation and public input that a democratic process necessitates. The numbers in the bill did not come out of thin air—they stem from a 2014 Advisory Commission. But the report has sat largely dormant since then. A report is no substitute for public hearings and debate.

Priorities

But, more importantly, the whole episode reflects poorly on the Legislature’s priorities.

Although some Democratic legislators have spoken out against Governor Baker’s recent $98 million 9C cuts, they have acquiesced to a framework of austerity year after year for the state budget, averse to raising new revenue and content to underinvest in our public infrastructure, from transit and schools.

Funding the pay raise will require either new revenue or new cuts, and Beacon Hill always seems to prefer the latter.

Moreover, despite Democrats’ overwhelmingly large veto-proof majorities in both houses, Leadership (as well as many in the rank-and-file) has adopted a chummy and non-confrontational relationship with Governor Baker. They rarely send bills to his desk that they expect him to veto. This one is a notable profile in courage…for legislator raises. 

It is true that during budget season, Democrats will override line item vetoes (particularly on earmarks), but, overall, the Legislature is advancing a bold and comprehensive progressive agenda—in rhetoric or action–regardless of the affable Governor’s disposition.

A Challenge

The pay raise now is a done deal. We do not subscribe to a conservative frame of starving the beast and drowning governments in bathtubs. But there’s a reason why their actions feel out of touch.

So here’s a challenge to those on Beacon Hill:

If you are willing to override Governor Baker’s veto to give yourselves a raise, then do the same to give workers across the Commonwealth a raise by passing a $15 minimum wage.

If you are willing to override Governor Baker’s veto to give yourselves greater stipends, then do so as well to guarantee workers across the state a necessary benefit like paid family and medical leave.

And if you are willing to override Governor Baker’s veto to invest more in yourselves, then do so to invest in the Commonwealth.


2015-2016 Final Scorecard Analysis

The Senate had a productive second half of the 189th session, and we were happy to see several of our priority bill get passed.

The Fair Share amendment, or “millionaire’s tax,” passed its first constitutional convention. Massachusetts played catch-up to other states by modernizing our public records laws. And the Senate showed how we can continue to be a beacon to other states with bold legislation protecting the rights of trans individuals (and by beating back amendments to weaken it). The Senate’s paid family and medical leave bill, which it passed at the end of the session, would advance such a legacy as well.  However, consistent with a broader pattern, the Paid Leave bill, passing in the Senate, was not taken up by the House. We will continue to fight for it in the new session.

We scored other progressive bills that were not formally included in our legislative agenda, such as the zoning reform bill (which would increase the state’s stock of affordable housing), the family financial protection bill (which would provide greater protections and relief for consumers who are pursued by abusive debt collectors), a bill to divert youth with low-level offenses from going deeper into the justice system, and a bill to increase campaign finance transparency. Only the last one passed the House as well, and we hope to see the others come up again in the next session.

The scores of the Democratic caucus ranged widely, from a low of 39% (James Timilty) to a high of 100% (Jamie Eldridge). 19 Democrats, more than half of the caucus and almost half of the body, achieved a score above 80% for the full session. James Boncore, who elected in a special election in the spring, and Senate President Stan Rosenberg, who does not always choose to vote, join this high-scoring contingent, but on a smaller total of votes. Although many senators scored well, they can all be encouraged to do better in the next session— both in their votes and their leadership and advocacy in pushing progressive priorities.

A note on methodology: Absences are scored as votes against the progressive position: our elected officials are paid to represent us, and that demands showing up to vote. (There can, of course, be extenuating circumstances, which we can point out when brought to our attention). Present votes are scored the same way.  We encourage every constituent with questions about absences — or indeed, any vote — to contact their legislators and directly inquire about their records. Scorecards, as we have articulated elsewhere, are imperfect instruments, but legislators’ votes (or non-presence for votes) are the best material available from which to assess an elected’s record. A call and conversation can be very illuminating about the priorities and decision-making of your representative.

A note on vote selection: Although we commend the Senate for passing paid family and medical leave, we are not scoring it this session because there was only a voice vote. We hope–and will fight to make sure–that it comes up again this session in both houses. And although the public records reform bill that was passed marks an improvement on the status quo, it was watered down enough to achieve unanimity, leaving much work still to do. Scoring the vote would be of little utility to holding legislators accountable—for that, we need to continue to be vigilant and to push for bolder and better reforms.

Final 2015-2016 Scorecard Analysis

Scoring the House can be a tricky endeavor given paucity of votes compared to the Senate. Amendments or bills that might split the Democratic caucus are less likely to get a hearing, let alone a recorded vote. This was especially the case in the second half of the 189th session.

Because of this reluctance, the House had fewer accomplishments than the Senate. It did not, like the Senate, advance legislation to combat wage theft, guarantee paid family and medical leave, protect families from abusive debt collectors, divert youth with low-level offenses from going deeper into the criminal justice system, or set 2030 and 2040 climate benchmarks–to name a few.

However, the session was not without accomplishments The Fair Share amendment, or “millionaire’s tax,” passed its first constitutional convention. Massachusetts played catch-up to other states by modernizing our public records laws, and furthered good government principles by improving campaign finance laws. The House also showed how we can continue to be a beacon to other states by passing legislation protecting the rights of trans individuals (and beating back amendments to weaken it).

The scores of the Democratic caucus ranged widely, from 30% (Colleen Garry) to 100% (Jonathan Hecht). Unlike in the Senate, where no Republican scored above any Democrat, Republicans James Kelcourse and David Vieira scored above Garry, with 35%. Despite such a wide range, 40 Democrats, almost one-third of the caucus, had the same score (78%) as Speaker DeLeo, with 31 of them matching him vote-for-vote. This number would have been higher if not for occasional absences.

Two votes this session highlighted significant contrasts within the Democratic caucus. 31 Democrats voted for an amendment to the trans equality bill that sought to sow confusion about the bill and promote damaging stereotypes by redundantly criminalizing acts of trespassing. And 34 Democrats rightly voted against an amendment by Governor Baker to the bill updating Massachusetts’s IDs to be compliant with the federal REAL ID law. In its attempt to prohibit undocumented immigrants from obtaining state-issued IDs, the amendment created additional hurdles for documented immigrants to do so.

Looking Ahead

Massachusetts can boast the third largest Democratic legislative supermajorities in the country (after Hawaii and Rhode Island). However, a supermajority is only valuable insofar as it is put to use.

In Washington, the conservative agenda of slashing taxes, safety nets, public interest regulations, and civil rights is about to be unleashed.  Given the sharp regress to come, it is time for Massachusetts legislators to step up their game.

With veto-proof majorities in both Houses, Massachusetts Democrats cannot point to Governor Baker for excuses about their failure to pass the bold legislation we need to make our Commonwealth work for all of its residents (and for future generations).

A major obstacle going into 2017 will continue to be the centralization of power into the Speaker’s office–a problem exacerbated in 2015 when House Democrats voted to abolish term limits for Speaker Robert DeLeo (see our scorecard vote #189.2h). The Speaker tightly controls the agenda; under current norms of leadership, the body of work of the MA House will only be as progressive as the Speakers wants it to be. Under Speaker DeLeo, most truly progressive legislative priorities do not even get out of committee, let alone come to a vote — let alone a roll called (recorded) vote.

An important question progressives should consider is, who does their legislator see as his or her most important constituency — voters or the Speaker? One of the aims of  the scorecard is to help provide data for assessment and conversation.

Notes on Process

Methodology & Action: Absences are scored as votes against the progressive position: our elected officials are paid to represent us, and that demands showing up to vote. (There can, of course, be extenuating circumstances, which we can point out when brought to our attention). Present votes are scored the same way.  We encourage every constituent with questions about absences — or indeed, any vote — to contact their legislators and directly inquire about their records. Scorecards, as we have articulated elsewhere, are imperfect instruments, but legislators’ votes (or non-presence for votes) are the best material available from which to assess an elected’s record. A call and conversation can be very illuminating about the priorities and decision-making of your representative.

Vote Selection: Although the public records reform bill that was passed marks an improvement on the status quo, it was watered down enough to achieve unanimity, leaving much work still to do. Scoring the vote would be of little utility to holding legislators accountable—for that, we need to continue to be vigilant and to push for bolder and better reforms.