“More and more residents are unable to afford to live in our commonwealth anymore”

Green affordable housing

Tuesday, May 9, 2023 

Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and Members of the Joint Committee on Housing: 

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 see it all the time in polls, we hear it on the doors, and we see it in the data: Massachusetts has a housing crisis. More and more residents are unable to afford to live in our commonwealth anymore, priced out from one community to another and then out entirely, or face severe housing instability. 

We need a comprehensive approach to the housing crisis, and strong protections for tenants must be a part of it. We urge you to give a favorable report to the following bills: 

S.864/H.1731: An Act promoting access to counsel and housing stability in Massachusetts

S.956/H.1690: An Act promoting housing opportunity and mobility through eviction sealing (HOMES)

Right to Counsel (S.864/H.1731): These bills would provide legal representation for low-income tenants and low-income owner-occupants in eviction proceedings. The eviction moratorium that the Legislature passed earlier in the pandemic was a vital lifeline for so many, but eviction filings have now been climbing past what they were in 2019, pre-pandemic. Tenants enter such eviction proceedings at a major disadvantage: according to FY2022 Trial Court data, while 86% of landlords are represented, only 11.5% of tenants are represented. Tenants facing eviction are disproportionately poor, female, and BIPOC, and evictions can have lasting negative impacts on physical and mental health. Connecticut, Maryland, and Washington have already passed Right to Counsel policies, and Massachusetts should join them. 

HOMES Act (S.956/H.1690): Having an eviction record is creating a devastating barrier for tenants looking for housing. Records are created as soon as a case is filed and are publicly available forever––regardless of the outcome. These records impact people’s ability to obtain housing, credit, and employment, harming many, especially women and people of color. 

Regardless of whether one does anything wrong or is actually evicted, being party to an eviction or housing case is being unfairly held against tenants when they try to rent a new place. Even winning in court hurts tenants. However, there is no current process by which a tenant can seal an eviction record, as there already is in states such as California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, and Texas. 

Notably, the Legislature already passed language around eviction sealing in early 2021, only for it to fail to become law due to a last-minute veto by former governor Charlie Baker. We urge you not to wait longer before bringing this issue back up, and we urge you to strengthen the language of these bills to allow eviction sealing to be automatic in certain cases, as opposed by merely by petition: the families facing eviction are least likely to be able to navigate a maze of paperwork. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

“A right to reproductive health care is not a real right unless every individual is able to access that care”

May 2, 2023

Rep. James M. Murphy, Co-Chair Senator Paul Feeney, Co-Chair 

Joint Committee on Financial Services Joint Committee on Financial Services

Massachusetts State House, Room 254 Massachusetts State House, Room 

Boston, MA 02133 Boston, MA 02133

Dear Chairs Murphy, Feeney, and members of the Joint Committee on Financial Services:

We, the undersigned organizations committed to advancing reproductive freedom, equity, and justice in the Commonwealth, write today in support of H.1137 filed by Representatives Sabadosa and Balser and S.646 filed by Senator Friedman. 

Massachusetts law, as currently written, requires insurers to offer coverage for childbirth and treatment of miscarriages, but permits cost sharing. For too many mothers and families navigating high deductible plans and increased out-of-pocket spending, the burden of this cost sharing results in long-term financial struggles.

Under this legislation, all Massachusetts-regulated health insurance plans would be required to cover the full spectrum of pregnancy-related care without any cost-sharing, ensuring that Bay Staters are not saddled with insurmountable debt post-pregnancy and enabling them to have greater control over their lives and financial futures. We are grateful to the Legislature for its bold action to ensure coverage without cost-sharing for all abortion and abortion-related care, a key provision of Chapter 127 of the Acts of 2022. Now, we must go further to break down financial barriers to all pregnancy-related care. 

A right to reproductive health care — including care for all pregnancies, abortion, and miscarriage — is not a real right unless every individual is able to access that care, free from cost barriers. Being a new parent is tough enough. The last thing someone adjusting to life with a newborn needs to worry about is how they’re going to pay for the care they just received. 


According to the Massachusetts Center for Health Information and Analysis’ (CHIA) 2021 Massachusetts Health Insurance Survey, more than 1.7 million people in Massachusetts are on high deductible health plans. That’s 1.7 million people…

  • Who may never be able to get out of debt once they start a family;
  • Who could be forced to meet their deductible twice if the nine months of their pregnancy falls across two insurance plan years;
  • Who may be forced to forgo prenatal or postpartum care because of costs;
  • Who may delay family planning because they are too concerned about making ends meet; or most cruelly,
  • Who would be sent a hefty bill days after suffering the devastating loss of  miscarriage. 

The futures of people seeking pregnancy care should not be dictated by deductibles. 

This is an issue of gender and racial equity. Massachusetts is already combatting an epidemic of racial inequities in maternal health. Black women in our state are twice as likely as white women to die from pregnancy-related complications, and financial barriers to care are compounding these poor health outcomes. Forty percent of mothers have reported delaying prenatal care because they lack the money or insurance to cover the visits. Newborns of mothers who do not receive prenatal care are three times more likely to have a low birth weight and five times more likely to die than children born to mothers who receive prenatal care. We must reimagine our health care system and health care spending to center and support the needs of birthing people, families, and Black and Brown communities by making all pregnancy care more accessible. 

Based on CHIA’s Mandated Benefit Review of this legislation, we can make high-quality pregnancy-related care accessible to all Bay Staters for only an extra $2.09 per month on our monthly health insurance premiums—less than a cup of coffee. We don’t have to imagine a Massachusetts where everyone has access to the pregnancy care they need to safely give birth and raise a family; where fewer of our loved ones die from pregnancy-related care; and where no one has to go into debt to start a family. All we have to do to make this our reality is pay an extra $25 a year on our health insurance premiums.

Every Bay Stater must have access to the full spectrum of pregnancy-related care so we all can decide if, when, and how to have a family or raise children. We can ensure that our friends, families, loved ones, children, and children’s children would be safer, happier, and healthier, because pregnancy-related care would be so much more accessible to them.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our testimony, and we again urge you to give H.1137 and S.646 a favorable report.

Respectfully,

Rebecca Hart Holder, President, Reproductive Equity Now

Carol Rose, Executive Director, ACLU of Massachusetts

Nate Horwitz-Willis, Executive Director, Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts

Luu Ireland, MD, MPH, Chair, Massachusetts Section of the American College of Obstetricians and 

Gynecologists

Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director, Progressive Massachusetts

Jeremy Burton, Chief Executive Officer, Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston

“Our commonwealth…took away the right to vote from a category of people who were formerly enfranchised.”

Democracy Behidn Bars

April 6, 2023 

Chair Keenan, Chair Ryan, and Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director at Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.26 and S.8: Proposal for a legislative amendment to the Constitution relative to voting rights.

I would like to begin with a bit of history. Felony disenfranchisement in Massachusetts is a recent phenomenon. Indeed, although we often think of the history of voting rights in the US as one of ever-forward motion, Massachusetts stands as an outlier. In the late 1990s, after incarcerated individuals in MCI-Norfolk started organizing for better conditions, Republican Governor Bill Cellucci and the MA Legislature responded with retaliation: a multi-step process of disenfranchisement. In 2000, Massachusetts voters approved a constitutional amendment to prohibit people incarcerated for felonies in state prison from voting in state elections; the subsequent year, Cellucci signed a law to extend this prohibition to federal and municipal elections. Our commonwealth did something rare in recent history: it took away the right to vote from a category of people who were formerly enfranchised. 

In 2022, the Massachusetts Legislature took an important step forward when passing the VOTES Act by including language creating protections for jail-based voting for those who still maintain the right to vote, but we must build on that momentum by ending remaining disenfranchisement, as these bills would. 

Felony disenfranchisement compounds the systemic racism of the criminal legal system. Approximately 8,000 residents of the Commonwealth are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, more than 50% of them are Black or Latinx. 

Felony disenfranchisement laws disenfranchise more voters than those directly affected. Whenever someone loses the right to vote even temporarily, they are likely to mistakenly think that they have lost it permanently. We must eliminate archaic laws that create voter suppression and voter confusion. 

Felony disenfranchisement exacerbates the humanitarian crisis in our prisons and jails. Even Trump’s DOJ pointed out that Massachusetts correctional facilities are engaging in torture, and a lack of political voice puts individuals at risk for abuse. 

Moreover, studies have often shown that fostering ties to the outside world is central to reducing recidivism. Civic engagement provides just that, and we should welcome it. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn

Voters Wanted Fairness and Investment, not Tax Cuts for the Rich

Roslindale Canvass for Fair Share

Testimony to the Joint Committee on Revenue on Tuesday, March 28, 2023 by Nina Lev of Roslindale

I am Nina Lev, a retired Physician Assistant. I have lived in Massachusetts for over 50 years and in Boston for 40 years. I am testifying in support of S.1784, a fairer and less costly proposal to reform the estate tax threshold without giving a tax break to multi-million dollar estates.

I voted and worked to pass the Fair Share Amendment because I am strong supporter of public education and transportation. As a single mom earning minimum wage I was able to complete my BA at U. Mass in 1978 because the tuition was so reasonable. My daughter received an excellent education in Mass Public school and is thriving in her career as an educator. As a senior citizen, I hope to age in place in Boston and be able to depend on public transportation. But I’m concerned that the current state of the MBTA will make that difficult. The T will need a lot of resources to make up for years of neglect.

I also voted for the Fair Share Amendment because I believe in Tax Fairness. As a member of Progressive WROX/ROZ I talked to hundreds of neighbors about the Fair Share Amendment at the farmer’s market and canvassing door to door and a vast majority of those I spoke with supported the amendment because they wanted to make the Massachusetts tax code fairer. Giving multi-million dollar estates a six figure tax cut is the opposite of what we wanted.

Lastly, I am retired from a successful career, which I attribute, in part, to the public education I have received. My estate could potentially be subject to an estate tax. If so, I will consider myself and my beneficiaries fortunate and hope that the funds go to create opportunities for the the next generations. As you consider reforms to the estate tax, please don’t give the largest estates a tax break.

“We voted to have those who have a little more to pay their fair share.”

Malden Fair Share

Testimony from Keith Bernard before the Joint Committee on Revenue on Tuesday, March 28

Honorable chairs and members of the committee,

My name is Keith Bernard from Malden and for transparency, while I am an elected member of the Malden School Committee, I am not representing them and I am testifying on behalf of Mystic Valley Progressives, a chapter of Progressive Mass. I am also testifying because I am father and as of a month ago a grandfather. Our group supports favorable reporting of S.1784 and H.2960, a fairer and less costly proposal to reform the estate tax threshold without giving an enormous tax break to multi-million-dollar estates.

In November, I voted for the Fair Share Amendment because I believe that our public school systems as well as our transportation network had been underfunded for a long time. I saw my neighbors, and the children in my neighborhood not getting the services they needed to thrive. Educational professionals could not afford to work at a job that many of them loved. I saw my city having to make difficult choices to make our budgets work and I know that Malden is not the only municipality that faces these hard decisions.

You may know Malden, because of our recent teacher strike. I was happy to vote to approve raises for our teachers and especially our educational professionals. I have neighbors that work for the Malden Public School but were not being paid a living wage, and we fixed that. I do not want to look them in the face when we lose other programs that the working families of Malden because we now have a revenue gap.

We voted to have those who have a little more to pay their fair share. We asked for revenue to be generated in a fair manner so we could invest in our children and our workers. We need well-funded schools, and we need trains and buses that run on time and and regularly. However, I and our members do not support giving multimillion dollar estates a six-figure tax cut. As you consider reforms to the estate tax, please respect the will of the many who voted Yes on 1, and do not give the largest estates a tax break. Thank you for your time and we look forward to seeing S.1784 and H.2960 be reported out favorably.

Fair Share was a Transformative Win. Let’s Protect It.

Fair Share

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

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

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, multi-issue grassroots advocacy organization with chapters across the commonwealth committed to fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Massachusetts. 

Because of our commitment to a vision of shared prosperity, we have been involved with the Fair Share Amendment campaign from the start, and last year, we knocked over 100,000 doors for Question 1 — not to mention the work of phone banking, text-banking, tabling at community events, and talking with friends and neighbors. Everyday people around the commonwealth got involved with the campaign because they realized the need for a fairer code and the transformative potential of the investments we could make with new revenue. 

They understood that more revenue could mean greater reinvestment in schools to ensure that buildings are safe, green, and healthy; to address the social and emotional needs of students coming out of a pandemic; to ensure that underpaid professionals get the compensation they deserve; and to deliver on the promise of the Student Opportunity Act. They understood that more revenue could mean changing course from our decades-long disinvestment from public higher education and instead guaranteeing better pay for faculty and staff and ensuring that students can graduate without debt. They understood that more revenue could mean finally fixing the MBTA so that the buses and trains run frequently, reliably, and safely — as well as to more places and at lower cost. They understood that more revenue could mean fixing our roads so that they are no longer ridden with potholes and upgrading structurally deficient bridges that plague so many communities. 

The voters understood too, delivering a win for Question 1 in November. Massachusetts voters were clear: make sure the rich pay their fair share so that we can invest in our education and infrastructure. 

Elected officials said that the barrier to doing important things was money, so we went out and made sure to organize and mobilize to get that revenue. And the Governor’s proposal would give it right back. 

Regressive tax cuts account for almost $400 million of Gov. Healey’s tax proposal. The proposed cut to the short-term capital gains tax would be bad for the economy, by encouraging more speculative activities such as rapid stock trading and “flipping” real estate, and it would be deeply regressive, as the highest-income 1 percent of households would receive almost eighty percent of the tax cut at an average of over $7,000 apiece.

The proposed cut to the estate tax is also deeply regressive. We can acknowledge that “cliffs,” as exists in the estate tax, are not good policy designs, but that should not lead to excluding estates up to $3 million and providing a $182,000 tax cut to estates even larger than that. There is no world in which a $10 million estate needs an extra $182,000. If the Legislature would like to update the estate tax, it should heed proposals like H.2960/S.1784: An Act relative to estate tax reform, which would only lift the exemption threshold to $2 million and would provide no tax breaks to larger estates. Such a proposal, in contrast to the Governor’s, would preserve most of the revenue-generation, inequality-reduction, and fairness benefits of the estate tax, while eliminating the current cliff effect.

Other parts of the Governor’s tax proposal are, fortunately, not so regressive, but they still do little to address the cost of living in Massachusetts. A child tax credit providing $600 per child under 13 would not even cover two weeks of child care. An expanded renters deduction would lead to merely $50 more for renters, if they even qualify. Tax credits are an inefficient way to meet the very real needs of caregivers and renters, and the Legislature must act swiftly to pass legislation to address the high cost of child care and the impact of escalating rents. If the Legislature would like to advance the Governor’s tax credits, they should be paid for with progressive, revenue-raising changes to the tax code, so that they do not drain down payments on transformative policy that actually addresses the high cost of living. 

Massachusetts needs robust state revenue if we want to take action to address the child care affordability crisis, the housing affordability crisis, growing student and medical debt, the climate crisis, and an often-malfunctioning transit system. Moreover, as the federal government seems headed for debt-ceiling brinkmanship, Republican-led austerity, and the sunset of COVID-era aid, Massachusetts will likely see greater need for state revenue to fill in the gaps. Now is not the time for permanent, regressive tax-cutting. 

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Strengthening Reproductive Rights Here at Home

July 21, 2022

Chair Michlewitz and Vice Chair Friedman,

Thank you for taking swift action in support of reproductive justice after the Supreme Court’s recent shameful and misguided ruling in Dobbs. When rights are under attack on the national level, it is important for Massachusetts to send a clear message that we will not only protect but also strengthen rights here at home—as well as serve as a model to other states.

Progressive Massachusetts would like to emphasize the importance of several provisions in S.3003 and H.4954.

Provider Protections: S.3003 and H.4954 will both establish critical protections for those in Massachusetts who provide or help someone access reproductive health care and gender-affirming care. These provisions state unequivocally that access to reproductive health care and gender-affirming care are rights secured by the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth. This language takes steps to protect defendants from abusive litigation based on such care, ensures that officials in the Commonwealth will not voluntarily facilitate investigations or lawsuits into such care, and offers protections to providers who may face impacts on their professional license or medical malpractice insurance premiums as repercussions of abusive litigation.

Medication Abortion: Thousands of college students in Massachusetts currently live in “access deserts” where the nearest abortion provider is hours away via public transit, if accessible at all. Language adopted by an amendment from Sen. Lewis to S.3003 will ensure that public college students can access medication abortion in the early stage of pregnancy at the locations where they already receive other reproductive health care services—at their campus health center. We wouldn’t accept having to travel over four hours for a dentist appointment. Abortion care shouldn’t be any different. 

Delivering on the Promise of the ROE Act: We must do everything we can to ensure pregnant patients can access compassionate care in our Commonwealth. In a post-Roe reality, it is simply not safe for a patient at any stage of pregnancy to have to travel out of state to access an abortion provider. To this end, we urge you to realize the full intent of the ROE Act by clarifying the statutory framework for abortion care after 24 weeks to ensure no one is forced to travel out of state for care. 

Thank you for your work on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Letter to the Budget Conference Committee on No Cost Calls


Monday, July 27, 2022

Dear Chair Michlewitz, Chair Rodrigues, and members of the Committee:

I am writing on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts to thank you for your support of legislation that would keep families connected by eliminating the cost of phone calls for those who are incarcerated and for their loved ones. As you and the other members of the Conference Committee consider the FY23 budget reports, we urge you to consider that, to truly keep families connected, calls should be free, fully funded, and guaranteed.

We are proud to be among the 70 organizations, including legal service providers, public defenders, social workers, bar associations, and directly-affected people, that have advocated for No Cost Calls. We recognize that criminal legal reform is a racial justice issue and that mass incarceration disproportionately affects Black and Brown communities and people living in poverty. We understand that families often have to choose between staying connected to an incarcerated loved one and paying for necessities like rent or food—or risk going into debt.

We urge you to include the following essential pieces in the ultimate budget language:

Guaranteed Telephone Access

Currently, Massachusetts jails and prisons do not restrict how many minutes incarcerated people can talk to their loved ones each day. Calls are only limited by the cost. The Legislature must ensure that this current level of contact does not decrease once calls are free. Both the House and the Senate have approved language that aims to avoid new restrictions on access to phone calls. We urge you to bar any new caps on calls in order to maintain continuity and to guarantee at least 120 minutes per person per day.

Funding of Communication Services

We strongly support the House language creating a $20M Trust Fund dedicated to communication services. Upon proof of expenditures, the Fund would reimburse prisons and jails for their spending on communication services. That Trust Fund should be in the final FY23 budget, to take effect this year.

Prohibition on Commissions 

Both the House and Senate budgets address site commissions, i.e., payments made by phone companies to jails and prisons, taken from revenue paid by consumers. While some Sheriffs have said they need this money to provide programs, the House and Senate have agreed that low-income telephone consumers should not pay for programs in the jails and prisons. Instead, the Sheriffs should seek such funding through their budget requests, with full transparency and accountability, and the Legislature should ban site commissions.

Start Date

Families have shouldered the financial hardship of paying the high costs of maintaining contact with their incarcerated loved ones for too long. We respectfully request that you include fully funded, guaranteed No Cost Calls in the final FY23 budget, to take effect this year.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director Progressive Massachusetts





Gig Companies’ Lies…As Easy as A, B, C

uber Lyft

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

Thank you for holding today’s hearing. My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

Progressive Massachusetts is opposed to Big Tech’s anti-worker, anti-consumer Ballot Initiative (H.4375/H.4376), An Act defining and regulating the contract-based relationship between network companies and app-based drivers.

Massachusetts has very clear standards for determining independent contractor standards (the “ABC test”), and gig economy companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart 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, 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.

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.

These ballot questions would deny app-based gig workers a living wage, benefits, legal rights, and anti-discrimination protections. They also effectively take away consumers’ and the public’s right to take legal action against the companies in the event of an accident, and will disincentivize the companies from doing everything they can to ensure that riders are safe when they avail these services.

These companies spent over $200 million to pass a similar ballot question in California called Proposition 22 with devastating impacts for workers and communities.

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

PILOT Reform: Our Wealthy Institutions Need to be Better Neighbors

Harvard campus

Friday, January 28, 2022

Chairman Hinds, Chairman Cusack, and Members of the Joint Committee on Revenue:

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 a favorable report for H.3080 and S.1874: An Act relative to payments in lieu of taxation by organizations exempt from the property tax (Rep. Uyterhoeven & Sen. Gomez).

Massachusetts is lucky to be home to many world-class hospitals and 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 as communities are looking to find much-needed funds for investments in schools, housing, and infrastructure.

This bill would address this discrepancy by requiring large hospitals and universities to pay 25% of commercial property taxes to municipalities, based on the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement in Boston. Under this bill, municipalities could opt in to requiring a mandatory PILOT rather than having to engage in drawn-out negotiations or chasing down institutions one by one.

Why 25%? This number reflects the costs posed by such large institutions to municipal services like police, fire departments, and departments of public works. It is still a good deal for the institutions, who are still paying far less in property taxes than an individual would have to pay. And, by applying only to institutions with property worth over $15 million, the bill would avoid risking any adverse impact on smaller institutions.

We need to be empowering municipalities to take action to address the many crises before us, but they need the funds to do so. And when they have wealthy institutional neighbors, they shouldn’t be forced to be stuck in struggling fiscal straits.

Moreover, municipalities across the Commonwealth, as well as the state government itself, would benefit from a clearer understanding of how much money gets lost through such tax exemptions each year. We thus also urge a favorable report for H.3802 An Act establishing a study to examine lost municipal real estate tax revenue (Rep. Robinson), which would provide a clearer assessment of just what that lost revenue is.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts