Mass Can Lead the Way on Medicare for All

Medicare for All

Tuesday, November 14, 2023

Chair Friedman, Chair Lawn, and members of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.744/H.1239: An Act establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has a storied role in the history of the fight for universal health care in the US. Our former senator Ted Kennedy was a longtime champion of single payer, and our 2006 health care reform law was a model for the Affordable Care Act nationally.

Although our health care reform law, boosted by the ACA, has helped Massachusetts achieve near-full universality in health insurance coverage, we still see underinsurance, high premiums, high rates of medical debt, and significant disparities—all inevitable outcomes of a reliance on private sector provision. Universal coverage alone doesn’t guarantee affordability, quality, or equity without additional steps.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the flaws of our current system clear. As we recognize the central public health message that our health is intertwined, we must build that recognition into health care delivery and ensure everyone can access the best-quality care possible. When anyone is too afraid of medical bills or debt to seek the care they need, we are all worse off.

The US remains the only advanced industrial country that has not recognized this as a fundamental right, but Massachusetts can lead the way. A single payer system would save the Commonwealth money through increased efficiency; take the burden of rising health care costs off small businesses, municipalities, and families; eliminate medical debt and medical bankruptcy; and finally guarantee access to quality, affordable health care as a right for all residents of the Commonwealth.

We often hear rhetoric around “choice” in our health care system. And indeed, there are plenty of places where “choice” is important, where it provides a valuable outlet for self-expression. Health insurance is not that. “Choice” in health insurance only means “you get as much as you can afford, and no more.”

The way we design our health care system has a significant impact on the lives of all residents of the Commonwealth, and putting equity and justice at the center of such a design is vital to ensuring that every person is able to live up to their full potential.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

It’s Well Past Time to Retire Offensive Mascots

Chair Lewis, Chair Garlick, and members of the Joint Education Committee:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.477/S.245 (An Act Prohibiting the Use of Native American Mascots by Public Schools in the Commonwealth).

The use of such mascots has serious social and emotional consequences for Native American youth, including lower self-esteem and more hostile school climates. For non-Native people, they promote a false understanding of Native Americans and culturally insensitive behaviors and stereotypes.

Whether or not someone’s dignity and rights are respected should not be a factor of which school they attend or in which city or town they live. This is a state matter.

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has been fighting to eliminate Native American mascots since the 1960s. Here in Massachusetts, the Chappaquiddick Tribe of the Wampanoag Nation, Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, and Nipmuc Nation have all called for the elimination of such mascots, and they are joined nationally by such organizations as the National Education Association, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the American Psychological Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

It’s time we listen.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

A Pro-Worker and Pro-Consumer Approach to “Gig Economy” Industries

Monday, November 6, 2023  

Chair Feeney, Chair Murphy, and Members of the Joint committee on Financial Services:  

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1158 and S.627: An Act establishing protections and accountability for TNC and DNC workers, consumers, and communities.

Big Tech companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and InstaCart have been flagrantly violating Massachusetts labor law by misclassifying their workers. Massachusetts has very clear standards for determining independent contractor standards (the “ABC test”). As a reminder, those three parts are (1) that the work is done without the direction and control of the employer, (2) that the work is performed outside the usual course of the employer’s business, and (3) that the work is done by someone who has their own, independent business or trade doing that kind of work. None of these apply to gig economy work. For example, there would be no Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, or InstaCart without their drivers; the claim that their companies are merely an app is a clear fallacy intended to evade the law.

These bills offer a solution a solution. By writing into law that drivers are employees, they make sure that drivers have the full range of protections employees have under the law, especially relating to wages, rights, and benefits.

Big Tech companies have been seeking to narrow the scope of what counts as “work time” for their drivers. These bills mandate that drivers and delivery workers are paid at least the MA minimum wage for all working time, and by requiring companies to reimburse workers for gas mileage at the IRS standard rate and pay for accidental liability insurance, they ensure that the drivers are actually receiving these full wages.

Importantly, these bills are also good for consumers. They would require these Big Tech companies to provide itemized charges, including surge pricing and fees and require them to provide a panic button system to guarantee safety.

The bills also establish a clear and strong regulatory framework for the industry, including reports on working conditions to the Department of Public Utilities and a requirement that rate hikes be approved by the DPU.

We would also like to go on record in opposition to H.961: An Act establishing portable benefit accounts for app-based-delivery drivers, an attempt by companies like DoorDash and InstaCart to codify their own violations of the law.

To reiterate a point we have made before, the ability to define away terms like “employee” and “independent contractor” sets a dangerous precedent, enabling companies across sectors to gut labor rights. Will we see restaurants claiming that the “restaurant” is only the physical building and physical infrastructure, relegating all employees to independent contractor status? Or hospitals claiming that the “hospital” is just the brick-and-mortar building, rather than the doctors, nurses, aides, and other health care workers that make it run? The list goes on.

That is not the future we want to live in, and we hope it is not one you want to live in either. We need to be proactive to set the right protections for workers and consumers and the right regulations for industry.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Why We Need a Zero-Carbon Renovation Fund

Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Chair Roy: and Members of the House Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy:  

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to An Act establishing a zero carbon renovation fund (H.3232), filed by Rep. Andy Vargas.

I think it is fitting that today’s hearing is held on Halloween because the present and future of climate change contains a litany of frights. This past summer, when this hearing had been originally scheduled, provided an ongoing series of warning signs of the need to take bold and comprehensive action on climate change. We experienced several of the hottest days on record globally. We saw extreme flooding hit neighboring states, and the same for the dystopian impacts of raging wildfires in Canada.

Fortunately, we know what we need to do to mitigate climate change. According to the recent Massachusetts Clean Heat Commission Final Report, achieving our state’s climate goals will require retrofitting an additional 500,000 residential homes and roughly 300 million square feet of commercial buildings to utilize energy-efficient electric heating by 2030, with a pace of 20,000-25,000 home installations a year ahead of 2025, ramping up to 80,000 a year in the latter half of the decade, and over 100,000 residential homes per year thereafter. If we want to meet our goals, we need to start accelerating and scaling our actions.

This bill would allocate $300 million for a Zero Carbon Renovation Fund (ZCRF), administered by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, to jumpstart the market for zero carbon renovations. Such renovations would include (1) maximizing energy efficiency through building envelope upgrades, (2) electrification of building systems, (3) maximizing usage of on-site renewable energy, wherever possible, and (4) use of building retrofit materials that are low embodied carbon.

Importantly, this bill understands that our sustainability transition must be an equitable one, and that some of the oldest housing stock is that where low-income communities and communities of color live. Accordingly, the ZCRF would prioritize affordable housing, public housing, low- and moderate-income homes, schools, BIPOC- and women-owned businesses, and buildings located in Environmental Justice communities.

We’ve seen positive steps from Gov. Healey about investing in green retrofits, but we must scale up that work.

The Legislature has made an ongoing commitment to passing climate legislation. Last session, you took important steps to expand the wind energy industry and to decarbonize transportation, among other steps. Decarbonizing buildings must be at the center of new climate legislation, as buildings make up a large share of our carbon emissions.

To go back to Halloween, perhaps the only thing more frightening than the scenarios of a much warmer world is the knowledge that we have the ability to act today and might not.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Why MA Needs a Public Bank

Tuesday, October 24, 2023

Chair Feeney, Chair Murphy, and Members of the Joint Committee on Financial Services:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.632 / H.975: An Act to establish a Massachusetts public bank.

A Massachusetts public bank would strengthen local economies, especially those in underserved communities. It will help provide cost-effective financing for small businesses and municipalities, land trusts and cooperatives, and projects for climate change adaption and mitigation.

A public bank would put public money to work for the public. Much of our Commonwealth’s funds are deposited in the Massachusetts Municipal Depository Trust, which invests nationally and internationally. With a public bank, we could be bringing some of that money back home to Massachusetts in service of a more equitable and sustainable state and local economy.

A public bank would be good for our cities and towns. Cities and towns, constrained in how they can raise money, often lack the resources for necessary long-term investments. A public bank would offer cities and towns an affordable and flexible alternative to the bond market for important local infrastructure projects.

A public bank would be good for our small businesses. Many small businesses are still struggling due to the disastrous economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. A public bank would be able to extend loans to small businesses, helping them to weather such difficult time as well as to grow and expand to better serve the community. The bill would specifically target rural communities and underserved neighborhoods, where entrepreneurs often face significant obstacles to securing seed funding for new businesses, and it can help encourage the flourishing of cooperative businesses and worker-owned coops, business models that exemplify shared prosperity.

A public bank would address long-standing economic inequities. We know that women and communities of color have faced longstanding barriers in securing access to capital. A public bank can help to level the playing field.

A public bank would be good for the environment. A public bank could support initiatives to mitigate the dangers of climate change, and it could help local farms adopt and promote sustainable agricultural practices.

Importantly, the bill recognizes that while all of these are exciting possibilities unlocked by a public bank, we need the right governance in place to make them a reality. That’s why the bill ensures that the board of advisors for the bank would represent the concerns of municipalities, underserved neighborhoods, small business, community development and community development finance, community banks and credit unions, sustainable agriculture and food security, workers’ interests, climate change and green finance, and environmental justice.

Thank you for all your work on today’s hearing. Again, we urge swift action to advance S.632 / H.975: An Act to establish a Massachusetts public bank.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Common Start: A Multi-Faceted Solution to Our Child Care Crisis

Tuesday, October 17, 2023

Chair Lewis, Chair Garlick, and Members of the Joint Committee on Education:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.301 and H.489: An Act providing affordable and accessible high-quality early education and care to promote child development and well-being and support the economy in the Commonwealth (“Common Start”).

Massachusetts comes in #1 in various state rankings, and we have much to be proud of. But one #1 in which we should not take pride is that we have the most expensive child care in the country.

The $20,913 average annual cost of infant care in Massachusetts is more than half of what a full-time minimum wage worker earns in a year, and more expensive than tuition at our public colleges and universities. These costs are prohibitively expensive for low- and middle-income families, who are forced to choose between making ends meet and saving for the future on one hand, or affording child care on the other. With such high costs for just one child, families with multiple children are put in especially dire financial straits.

The system is also not working for early childhood educators, who often don’t receive a living wage, and child care providers, who face high operational costs and unstable funding. And when early childhood educators leave the field or providers close, that makes the system even less affordable and less accessible. We need a multi-faceted solution for a multi-faceted problem.

High-quality early education programs get results. Children benefit with enhanced resiliency and employment opportunities over their lifetimes. Providing children with high-quality early education and child care is one of the most effective ways to further a child’s success in grades K-12 and beyond—and that pays off in the long run.

The Common Start bills would strengthen our commonwealth’s child care and early education infrastructure. They would provide stable funding for providers, ensuring greater access for families and supporting higher pay for educators. They would increase financial assistance to families offset the exorbitant costs of child care and early education. In that regard, we would underscore the importance of a framework as offered in the Senate bill, which fully covers the cost of child care for the lowest-income families and caps the cost of child care at 7% of total income for working- and middle-class families.

These bills also include measures to incentivize the provision of care during nonstandard hours, build cultural competency training into the workforce development system, and better provide accommodations for students with disabilities. 

We were glad to hear Governor Healey, Senate President Karen Spilka, and Speaker Ron Mariano all underscore the importance of taking action on these issues in their opening speeches at the start of this legislative session. We urge you to take swift action to report out these bills so that can become a reality.

The HERO Bill Can Help Us Tackle Both the Housing Crisis and the Climate Crisis

Testimony in support of H.2894 & S.1799 An Act providing for climate change adaptation infrastructure and affordable housing investments in the Commonwealth from Caroline Bays of Progressive Watertown

Chair Moran, Chair Cusack, and Members of the Joint Committee on Revenue:

Thank you for hearing my testimony.

My name is Caroline Bays and I have been a city councilor in Watertown for 6 years. Over the last few years several things have become clear – we have several existential issues facing us and we cannot address them without your help. 

Watertown, like most of eastern Massachusetts, is experiencing a housing crisis that is not going away. It is only getting worse. In just the six years I have been a councilor I have witnessed the city transform from a mixed class city with a wide variety of residents to a relatively rich extension of Cambridge. Our housing crisis extends to both the big A and little a affordable and we are going to have to come up with more innovative ways – and more money – to address the increasingly drastic issues of displacement we are experiencing.

But we have two existential crises facing us. Our city is very concerned about climate change and Watertown has passed a very aggressive climate action plan in our attempt to do our part to address the climate crisis, but in order to get to where we need to be by 2050 we will need money to implement our plan. We have hundreds of action items on our to-do list, and it ranges from comparatively small financial commitments, such as adding more street trees and EV chargers to incredibly expensive commitments such as retrofitting all of our municipal buildings to make them greener and creating a green municipal fleet. We need money for all of it. And it will mean multi-millions of dollars in investment. 

The HERO Bill is one low impact mechanism to help generate the money we need to meet our commitments. It is a comparatively small fee but it will generate money that can have a large impact on cities and towns, by helping us to meet our housing and climate goals. 

I will be delighted if you pass the enabling act for the transfer fee and I support that bill wholeheartedly, but that will not be enough. We are facing the humanitarian crisis of homelessness and the existential crisis of climate change. Now is the time for action and all of us in Watertown are doing our best to meet these crises, but we need your help. On behalf of my city and others across the Commonwealth, I am asking for your support. I urge you to report H.2894 & S.1799 out favorably so the state can raise the funds which will help our towns and cities do our part to implement the solutions we all know we need.

Thank you for hearing my testimony.

Why the Healthy Youth Act Remains Important

Wednesday, October 11, 2023

Chair Lewis, Chair Garlick, and Members of the Joint Committee on Education: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

I am writing today to urge you to give a favorable report to S.268/H.544: An Act relative to healthy youth (the “Healthy Youth Act”), filed by Sen. Sal DiDomenico and Reps. Jim O’Day and Vanna Howard. 

The Healthy Youth Act would require that school districts that offer sex education provide a curriculum that is age-appropriate, medically accurate, consent-informed, and LGBTQ-inclusive so that all students have the knowledge and tools they need to form healthy relationships. 

The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education recently updated the state’s health and physical education curriculum framework, and I was happy to see that it reflects this bill. 

However, although the updated curriculum framework is vital for school districts, it is not enough. The curriculum framework offers guidance, but not requirements. The Healthy Youth Act provides minimum standards with which school districts that teach sex ed must comply and contains critical provisions around data collection. 

We can’t wait another two decades for the next update to the health education curriculum, and the Healthy Youth Act establishes a process for routine updates. 

Thank you for all your work on today’s hearing, and I again urge you to give a favorable report to S.268/H.544, the Healthy Youth Act. 

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: Tackling Affordability Requires Investment

Wednesday, October 11, 2023

Chair Moran, Chair Cusack, and Members of the Joint Committee on Revenue:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We have heard a lot from the Legislature recently about wanting to take action on affordability, as the cost of living in Massachusetts has become increasingly unsustainable for many. However, contrary to recent steps, we cannot tax-cut our way into affordability. We need to invest. And that, of course, requires money.

We urge you to give a favorable report to the following bills:

  • S.1771 / H.2747: An Act granting a local option for a real estate transfer fee to fund affordable housing, filed by Sen. Jo Comerford and Rep. Mike Connolly.
  • S.1799 / H.2894: An Act providing for climate change adaptation infrastructure and affordable housing investments in the Commonwealth, filed by Sen. Jamie Eldridge and Rep. Sam Montaño
  • S.1834 / H.2824: An Act to support educational opportunity for all, filed by Sen. Adam Gomez, Rep. Natalie Higgins, and Rep. Christine Barber

Transfer Fee (S.1771/H.2747)

Our cities and towns need every tool in the toolbox to address our state’s housing crisis, and this bill would provide a crucial one. By imposing a small fee on high-end real estate transactions, communities will be able to provide much-needed funding to affordable housing trusts so that we can preserve and expand affordable housing stock. These bills recognize that each community’s housing situation is different and thus enable cities and towns to craft the proposal that best fits their community’s needs.

Cities and towns from across the Commonwealth have already filed home rule petitions to do this. When our cities and towns want to become places where people can afford to live at every stage of life, the State Legislature should support them, not be a roadblock. 

HERO bill (S.1799/H.2894)

This bill offers another tool for responding to our affordable housing crisis and, moreover, recognizes the need for not just affordable housing but green and healthy communities as well.

Initiated by the Housing and Environment Revenue Opportunities (HERO) Coalition, it would raise the deeds excise fee to a value still lower than comparable fees in Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont to raise dedicated revenue for climate resilience and affordable housing.

The estimated $300 million from this bill could go toward steps like creating or preserving additional housing for 18,000 working-class homeowners and renters over 10 years; financing hundreds of millions of dollars in competitive, flexible grants to localities for climate resilience and mitigation; or assisting between 3,500 and 6,500 additional extremely low-income families per year with housing vouchers or project-based rental assistance.

Educational Opportunity for All (S.1834/H.2824)

Massachusetts is lucky to be home to many world-class universities. But these large institutions, despite often operating indistinguishably from for-profit institutions, do not have to pay taxes. Given their large footprint, that is a fiscal drain for many communities across the Commonwealth, especially given the fact that such private universities will only ever educate a small percentage of the Commonwealth’s residents.

The endowment of Harvard University stood at over $50 billion last year; MIT, over $20 billion.

These bills recognize that such affluent institutions have the ability to contribute more. They would put a small excise fee on the part of a university’s endowment over $1 billion to create dedicated revenue for a fund subsidizing the cost of higher education, early education, and child care for lower-income and middle-class residents of the commonwealth.

Governor Healey and House and Senate leaders have all spoken about wanting to take action on the exorbitant cost of child care, early education, and higher education, and this bill offers a sensible and dependable way of raising the funds to do so.

Thank you for all your work on today’s hearing, and again, we urge you to swiftly advance these bills.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Drivers are Workers, and It’s as Easy as A-B-C

Tuesday, October 10, 2023

Chair Jehlen, Chair Cutler, and Members of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

I am writing today in opposition to H.1848, An Act establishing rights and obligations of transportation network drivers and transportation network companies. 

Massachusetts has very clear standards for determining independent contractor standards (the “ABC test”), and Big Tech companies like Uber and Lyft have been in flagrant violation of them.

As a reminder, those three parts are (1) that the work is done without the direction and control of the employer, (2) that the work is performed outside the usual course of the employer’s business, and (3) that the work is done by someone who has their own, independent business or trade doing that kind of work. None of these apply to gig economy work. For example, there would be no Uber and Lyft without their drivers; the claim that their companies are merely an app is a clear fallacy intended to evade the law.

Knowing that they are in violation of the law, these companies want to change it, rather than adhere to it. They are planning to spend possibly hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure that the law does not apply to them and that they, themselves, can rewrite it in order to bolster their own profits and power over workers.

This bill would deny app-based gig workers a living wage, benefits, legal rights, and anti-discrimination protections. The impact of these laws extends beyond just the gig economy sector itself. The ability to define away terms like “employee” and “independent contractor” sets a dangerous precedent, enabling companies across sectors to gut labor rights. Will we see restaurants claiming that the “restaurant” is only the physical building and physical infrastructure, relegating all employees to independent contractor status? Or hospitals claiming that the “hospital” is just the brick-and-mortar building, rather than the doctors, nurses, aides, and other health care workers that make it run? The list goes on.

That is not the future we want to live in, and we hope it is not one you want to live in either.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts