During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, schools were able to offer meals to all students at no charge through the pandemic-related child nutrition waivers offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Massachusetts chose to extend it and then last year voted to make it permanent, using funding from the Fair Share Amendment.
A new report by the Food Research and Action Center highlights the positive impacts of universal school meals. As the report notes, the research is clear: participation in school meals improves academic achievement, attendance, and student behavior at school; decreases childhood food insecurity; leads to children eating more fruits, vegetables, and milk; and reduces visits to the school nurse.
As the chart below shows, breakfast participation in Massachusetts went up by 25% from 2018-2019 numbers, and lunch participation went up by 16% from 2018-2019 numbers.
We will continue to see these benefits from universal school meals — a reminder that they are both good politics and good policy.
“The state analysis of the law shows that requiring wealthy households to pay more in taxes to contribute to the greater good has overall benefits for the state, said observers including Jonathan Cohn, political director for Progressive Massachusetts.
“The Fair Share Amendment has had a great first year. Looking forward to many more!” said the organization.”
Last year, voters like you showed up in November to vote for the Fair Share Amendment because you understood the importance of a fairer tax code and greater investment in public education and transportation. And you didn’t just show up to vote — you canvassed, phone-banked, text-banked, tabled, spoke to neighbors, and much more.
Now that Governor Maura Healey has signed the FY 2024 budget, we can see how much the Fair Share Amendment has delivered in its first year. Let’s take a look.
$229 million for public colleges and universities
$224 million for K-12 public schools
$70.5 million for early education and care
$175 million for roads and bridges
$95.7 million for regional public transit
$205.8 million for the MBTA
For early education and K-12 public education, that means….
For public higher education, that means….
For roads, bridges, and regional transit, that means….
The new revenue raised by the Fair Share Amendment could be at risk this fall if the Legislature passes major tax giveaways for the ultra-rich and large corporations.
Massachusetts needs to prioritize spending on what will make our state truly affordable, equitable, and competitive: programs that support working people and ensure a labor force adequate to our economy’s needs. That, in turn, requires that families have affordable housing, childcare, educational opportunities, and reliable transportation to make it possible for them to work, gain skills, and earn a good living.
We need to act NOW to protect the Fair Share Amendment from tax avoidance, and ensure that Massachusetts can invest more in our schools, colleges, roads, bridges, and public transit systems. At the same time, we need to make sure our legislators don’t give away billions of dollars to the ultra-rich.
On Monday (a month past the deadline), the MA House and Senate came to an agreement on the budget for the next fiscal year.
We wanted to highlight some of the important victories in it:
Tuition equity for all students regardless of immigration status
Permanent funding for universal school meals
No Cost Calls, keeping incarcerated individuals and their families connected
These victories came because of people like you reaching out to your legislators (and then reaching out to friends to do so too) and keeping the momentum going.
The budget also contained transformative new investments because of the Fair Share amendment, which you voted for and organized for last year.
But the fight is not over yet…..
Call Gov. Healey to urge her to sign the budget
The budget doesn’t become law until Gov. Healey signs it.
Can you call her office at (617) 725-4005 to urge her to support Tuition Equity, Permanent Universal School Meals, and No Cost Calls without changes?
The call can be short and sweet: it just needs that simple message.
Urge Your State Legislators to Reject Tax Cuts for the Ultra-Rich and Large Corporations
Although the Legislature came to an agreement on the budget, they are still in negotiations about a tax reform package.
Massachusetts needs to prioritize spending on what will make our state truly affordable, equitable, and competitive: programs that support working people and ensure a labor force adequate to our economy’s needs. That, in turn, requires that families have affordable housing, childcare, educational opportunities, and reliable transportation to make it possible for them to work, gain skills, and earn a good living.
We need to act NOW to protect the Fair Share Amendment from tax avoidance, and ensure that Massachusetts can invest more in our schools, colleges, roads, bridges, and public transit systems. At the same time, we need to make sure our legislators don’t give away billions of dollars to the ultra-rich.
The MA Senate will be voting on a budget this week. Though there are clear reasons to celebrate (such as the inclusion of in-state tuition for all Massachusetts high school graduates and robust funding for regional transit authorities, including funding for fare-free bus pilots), there are ways to make it better.
Take a moment to contact your state senator in support of Amendments #819, #856, and #941 to the Senate budget this week.
These amendments would protect the Fair Share victory, build on past progress on juvenile justice reform, and strengthen No Cost Calls language.
Want to be quick? Call their office and just say “Please co-sponsor Amendments #819, #856, and #941 to the Senate budget this week. These amendments would protect the Fair Share victory, build on past progress on juvenile justice reform, and strengthen No Cost Calls language.”
Prefer to email?
Amendment 819 (Sen. Jason Lewis): Reducing high income tax avoidance
Amendment #819 would require that couples who file jointly at the federal level also file jointly at the state level, as other states do. Right now, Massachusetts is the only state that has a separate income tax rate for high-income filers without either designating lower tax rate thresholds for single filers than married filers or requiring federal joint filers to file jointly on their state taxes. As a result, under current law, some high-income couples who file jointly at the federal level may be able to avoid up to $40,000/year in Fair Share tax by filing singly at the state level. This loophole creates an incentive for illegal misattribution of income between the two members of the couple, necessitating additional tax audits and causing a loss in vital state revenue.
Amendment #856 (Sen. Adam Gomez): Youth Bail Fees This amendment eliminates the $40 administrative bail fee imposed on justice-involved youth, paying the bail magistrate fee from state indigency funds. The Senate already passed this last session, so this is an opportune moment to do so again.
Amendment #941 (Sen. Liz Miranda): No Cost Calls
I was grateful to see that the MA Senate’s budget proposal includes “No Cost Calls” language that would end the practice of private corporations charging incarcerated people and their families huge fees to make phone calls to and from jail and prison.
This amendment strengthens the language to guarantee access to voice communications for people and ensures that technology like tablets, if they’re already equipped for phone call, can be used under the new law.
Last November, voters sent a message by voting for the Fair Share Amendment: the rich should pay their fair share so that we can invest in public education and infrastructure. For years, the Legislature has used the line “We don’t have the money” to justify inaction and underinvestment; we got them the money.
But on Thursday, the MA House made clear that they plan to give money right back to the rich and large corporations by passing a tax cut package filled with giveaways to the richest residents of the Commonwealth. Last year, many representatives were quite clear that they intended for the new revenue from the Fair Share Amendment to be fully additive, rather than backfilling cuts. Even though the House laid out promising and important uses for the constitutionally dedicated funds, voters should wonder how much legislators believe their own pledges given the permanent tax cuts they just passed.
The vote was 150 to 3, with only Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge), Rep. Dan Sena (D-Acton), and Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville) voting no.
Almost half of the cost of their tax proposal comes from the three regressive tax cuts:
A $231 million cut to the estate tax designed to disproportionately benefit the wealthiest estates
A $130 million cut for day traders and speculators by cutting the short-term capital gains tax
A $79 million tax cut for the state’s largest corporations through what is called “single sales factor apportionment”
Think of all that we could do with $440 million if instead we invested it in our public transit systems, in education, in child care, in climate resilience, in affordable housing, or in health care. Indeed, tackling our housing crisis should be the #1 priority if legislators actually cared about the goals of “affordability” and “competitiveness.” By passing such regressive tax cuts, the House is disrespecting the will of the voters, and they are setting Massachusetts up for brutal cuts when the next recession hits.
Even the less regressive parts of the tax package could go further if invested in robust social programs. The House bill would spend $40 million on an increase in the Renters Deduction from $3,000 to $4,000. However, this in reality, only yields to a tax credit of up to $50 for eligible renters. An extra $50 in the pocket of renters ultimately won’t go very far, given escalating rents and costs in general. As Rep. Mike Connolly pointed out, the state could have used the same money to guarantee all renters access to legal counsel in eviction cases, a measure with far lasting benefits.
The largest part of the tax package is the child and family tax credit, which would amount to $600 per child under 13 or dependent adult and cost $487 million. As I noted before, it is unclear why parents of teenagers should not get the same benefit: any parent of a teenager will tell you how much it costs to feed a teenager. Families with low and middle incomes will certainly benefit from extra money in their pocket, but $600 will not last long given that two weeks of child care costs more than that. The credit thus does little to address the real drivers of the cost of living in Massachusetts, even if it can help around the edges.
A more progressive part of the House’s tax package that was not in the Governor’s proposal was the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which would benefit about 396,000 taxpayers with incomes under $57,000, and would cost $91 million. However, it is important to remember that the EITC was originally a conservative proposal, born of opposition to a strong minimum wage and a robust safety net.
According to Mass Budget, we could make all public colleges and universities in the state tuition-free — or make all community colleges debt-free — for approximately $1 billion. State legislators would demand that such a proposal be funded. So why shouldn’t their tax expenditures have to be funded as well?
Last November, voters sent a message by voting for the Fair Share Amendment: the rich should pay their fair share so that we can invest in public education and infrastructure. For years, the Legislature has used the line “We don’t have the money” to justify inaction and underinvestment; we got them the money.
But, yesterday, the House, in unveiling their tax package, said that they plan to give money right back to the rich and large corporations.
Almost half of the cost of their tax proposal comes from the three regressive tax cuts:
A $231 million cut to the estate tax designed to disproportionately benefit the wealthiest estates
A $130 million cut for day traders and speculators by cutting the short-term capital gains tax
A $79 million tax cut for the state’s largest corporations through what is called “single sales factor apportionment”
Think of all that we could do with $440 million if instead we invested it in our public transit systems, in education, in child care, in climate resilience, in affordable housing, or in health care. Indeed, tackling our housing crisis should be the #1 priority if legislators actually cared about the goals of “affordability” and “competitiveness.” Indeed, even the less regressive parts of the tax package could go further if invested in a robust social programs. By proposing such regressive tax cuts, the House is disrespecting the will of the voters, and they are setting Massachusetts up for brutal cuts when the next recession hits.
You can also let your state representative know (on phone or in person tomorrow) that you want them to support two amendments filed by Rep. Mike Connolly:
#5 (Establishing a Tiered Corporate Minimum Tax), which ensures that large corporations pay their fair share [When corporations, through accounting wizardry, secure a $0 tax liability, the minimum tax they have to pay is $456. That tax should be based on the size of the corporation.]
#11 (Maintaining Some Degree of Short-Term Capital Gains Equity) to blunt the cut to the short-term capital gains tax
This spring, the Massachusetts House and Senate will be voting on their budgets for the next fiscal year, and it’s critical that they make sure to complete and protect last year’s victories when doing so.
What does that mean?
First, that means protecting last year’s win on the ballot for the Fair Share Amendment. Voters were clear about wanting the rich to pay their fair share and for us to invest in our public education and infrastructure. However, Governor Healey’s proposed budget would give away almost as much in tax cuts as is estimated to be raised by Fair Share, undermining the hard work that went into that campaign. In particular, almost $400 million of her tax package consists of regressive tax cuts that will go to speculators and major estates. We need to make sure to protect the revenue we raised so that we can realize the vision of better schools, better roads, and better transit for all.
Second, last summer the MA House and MA Senate both included language from the No Cost Calls bill in their budgets, but a veto from Governor Baker doomed its fate. The Legislature needs to complete the No Cost Calls win by including language to permanently guarantee that neither state nor county prisons or jails will continue the predatory practice of charging incarcerated individuals and their loved ones for phone calls.
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.
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.
