Jonathan Cohn, who chairs the Issues Committee for Progressive Massachusetts, an outside advocacy group, said he wants the House Progressives to reach higher, and keep pushing for progressive increases in state revenue – which could come in the form of higher taxes.
“We always want the House Progressive Caucus to be bolder than they often are in their asks,” Cohn said. “I think that they’re all good causes to fight for, however a lot of budget asks end up feeling like tinkering since without adding to the size of the budget in a meaningful way it will just be very important but small programmatic increases.” ….
Legislative leaders have said they will begin deliberating about proposals to hike revenues later this session, and Cohn wants the Progressive Caucus to keep up the pressure on that front.
Massachusetts House votes on its budget, the House will have an opportunity to decide what type of state Massachusetts is.
Are we a state that invests in our future and stands up to the bigotry of the Trump administration, or are we fine with crumbling infrastructure, underfunded schools, and complicity in a racist mass deportation agenda?
Investing in Our Future
While we will continue to fight for the passage of the Fair Share Amendment, or “millionaire’s tax,” our schools, regional transit authorities, and crumbling infrastructure can’t wait until 2023. The legislature can act RIGHT NOW to begin building the fairer tax structure that Massachusetts voters want.
Raising the tax on unearned income, for example, would put us in line with states like Vermont and New Jersey and raise more than $1 billion to invest in our Commonwealth. Approximately 80% of income from stocks, bonds, and similar financial assets goes to the highest-earning 1% of households in Massachusetts, while the bottom 80% of households receive only 3%.
Rep. Mike Connolly’s Budget Amendment #1357 (Long-Term Capital Gains) would provide provide much-needed funding.
Although 97% of capital gains go to the top quintile of earners, the Connolly amendment has an exemption for low income households to ensure they aren’t hurt by the change.
Standing up to the Trump Administration’s Bigotry
Massachusetts has been complicit in Trump’s racist mass deportation agenda. The Department of Correction and four sheriffs’ offices in the state have contracts with ICE to house persons who are in deportation proceedings and to deputize their employees as federal immigration agents. These contracts provide for the state offices to be reimbursed by ICE for the housing, transportation, and other costs they incur, but it has proven very difficult to determine how much reimbursement money ICE has been paying and whether those amounts cover actual expenses.
Rep. Tony Cabral’s Budget Amendment #1250 (Transparency in Spending) would be a check on this shameful collaboration with ICE.
This amendment would require the Department of Correction and the sheriffs’ offices with ICE contracts to provide the cost, revenue, and reimbursement figures associated with those contracts for the past three fiscal years and for FY 2020. This past fiscal year, the state has provided nearly $900 million in funding for the Department of Correction and for the sheriffs’ offices with ICE contracts. We deserve to know whether their contracts with ICE are covering the expenses they incur.
Whose Side Is Your State Rep On?
Is your state rep siding with the overwhelming percentage of voters who want to invest more in our schools and our infrastructure, or siding with the top 1%?
Is your state rep standing up for immigrants’ rights, or standing with the likes of Sheriff Hodgkins and Donald Trump?
Year after year, as legislators craft the latest budget, tough decisions have to be made. A big part of the reason for these tough decisions is that Massachusetts lacks the revenue to fund things, like good schools and reliable transportation, that are most important to our communities. But not having sufficient revenue isn’t inevitable; it’s a choice.
The Fair Share Amendment, which routinely polled at around 80%, was kicked off the 2018 ballot after a lawsuit from well-funded business groups. The Legislature has the opportunity to advance it to the 2022 ballot via a Constitutional Convention next month. But we can’t afford to wait another four years to invest in our Commonwealth.
The legislature can act RIGHT NOW to begin building the fairer tax structure that Massachusetts voters want.
Raising the tax on long-term capital gains from 5.05% to 8.95%, for example, would put us in line with states like Vermont and New Jersey and raise more than $1 billion to invest in our commonwealth.
The highest-income 1 percent of households receive approximately 80 percent of capital gains income in Massachusetts, while the bottom 80 percent of households receive only 3 percent.
Although 97% of capital gains go to the top quintile of earners, the Connolly amendment has an exemption for low income households to ensure they aren’t hurt by the change.
This is a step that you can take right now. But there are other steps to raise progressive revenue to fund our priorities now that deserve your consideration and your vote throughout the session—from placing a surtax on multi-million homes to increasing the corporate minimum tax so that all corporations pay their fair share. And we plan to keep beating that drum throughout the session.
PS: Curious to read more about the graph above? You can here.
In January of 2017, Progressive Massachusetts unveiled our legislative agenda for the 190th legislative session — 17 items for 2017 (and 2018). As we near the end of the year — and the start of the next legislative session, it’s the perfect time to take stock of how the various bills fared.
Clear Victories
Reproductive Rights
The ACCESS bill, which updates MA’s contraceptive coverage equity law to require insurance carriers to provide all contraceptive methods without a copay, passed overwhelmingly in the Legislature and was signed by the Governor.
Democracy
Massachusetts became the 13th state to adopt Automatic Voter Registration. In this reform pioneered by Oregon in 2015, eligible voters who interface with select government agencies (here, the RMV or MassHealth) are automatically registered to vote unless they decline. With more than 700,000 eligible citizens in MA unregistered, AVR will increase the accuracy, security, and comprehensiveness of voter rolls.
The bill also enrolls Massachusetts in Electronic Registration Information Center, a coalition of states founded by the Pew Research Center that enable states to synchronize their voter rolls. ERIC has increased the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the voter rolls in participating states.
[Note: The original bill included smaller social services government agencies as well. The final bill allows for their later inclusion but focuses on the two largest sources of possible new registrants.]
Steps Forward
Criminal Justice Reform
The comprehensive criminal justice reform bill passed by the Legislature in April incorporated some elements from our priority bills (Read our write-up here):
Eliminating most mandatory minimums for retail drug selling and drug paraphernalia and limiting mandatory minimums in school zones to cases involving guns or minors. [Note: PM and advocates had sought the elimination of all mandatory minimums. The bill, however, left in place mandatory minimums for Class A drugs (like heroin), expanded this definition to include opioids like fentanyl and carfentanil, and created a new mandatory minimum for assaulting a police officer, an overused charge wielded as a threat against protesters.]
Raising the felony-larceny threshold from $250 to $1,200 [Note: PM and other advocates had sought $1,500.]
Reducing fines and fees [Note: PM and other advocates wanted probation and parole fees fully eliminated.]
Establishing a process for expunging records, especially for juveniles convicted of minor offenses
There is still work to be done–from raising the age of criminal majority to severely curtailing (or outright abolishing) solitary confinement. That said, the bill, despite its shortcomings, was a step in the right direction.
Fight for $15
At the start of the session, we supported legislation to raise the minimum wage from $11 to to $15 by 2021, raise the tipped minimum wage from $3.75 to $15.75 by 2025, and require the minimum wage to increase with inflation starting in 2022.
The Raise Up Massachusetts coalition’s ballot initiative was slightly more modest in its ambition, extending the full phase-in date one year (due to a later start) and raising the minimum wage for tipped employees to only $9 (60% of the minimum wage) by 2022.
What passed in the ultimate “Grand Bargain,” an effort of the Legislature and the Governor to avoid three ballot initiatives ($15 minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, sales tax reduction) was more modest still. It raised the minimum wage to $15 by 2023, raised the tipped minimum wage to only $6.75, and dropped indexing. Unfortunately, the Legislature included a further concession to the business lobby, agreeing to phase-out time-and-a-half on Sundays and holidays. Although the bill is a net win for workers in Massachusetts, it’s possible that, due to the phase-out of time-and-a-half, some workers will be left worse off.
Paid Family and Medical Leave
The version of paid family and medical leave passed in the aforementioned “Grand Bargain” was less robust than the original legislation and the ballot initiative text, but still more robust than the programs that exist in other states.
Senate Victory, House Opposition
Several of our priority bills succeeded, or made partial progress, in the Senate, only to flounder in the House amidst fierce opposition from the conservative House leadership.
Fully Funding Our Schools
Massachusetts’s 25-year-old education funding formula is short-changing our schools $1-2 billion per year due to outdated assumptions about the costs of health care, special education, ELL (English Language Learners) education, and closing racial and economic achievement gaps.
The 2015 Foundation Budget Review Commission recommended a path forward for fixing it. The Senate unanimously adopted a bill to implement them. The House, however, insisted on leaving English Language Learners, Black and Brown students, and poor students (not mutually exclusive categories) behind.
Protecting Our Immigrant Friends and Neighbors
Despite Massachusetts’s liberal reputation, our Legislature has been historically hostile to strengthening protections for our immigrant community.
The Senate included four provisions from the Safe Communities Act, a bill that our members fought strongly for, in its FY 2019 budget: (1) a prohibition on police inquiries about immigration status, a prohibition on certain collaboration agreements between local law enforcement and ICE, (3) a guarantee of basic due process protections, and (4) a prohibition on participation in a Muslim registry. The amendment was a win-win for both rights and safety, but House Leadership opposed its inclusion in the final budget.
Bold Action on Climate Change
Many elements from our priority environmental legislation were incorporated in the Senate’s impressive omnibus bill:
Building on the Global Warming Solutions Act by setting intermediate emissions targets for 2030 and 2040
Establishing a 3% annual increase in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to accelerate our commitment to renewable energy
Prohibiting a “pipeline tax” on energy consumers
Instructing the governor’s office to develop carbon pricing for the transportation sector by the end of 2020, for commercial buildings and industrial processes by 2021, and for residential buildings by the end of 2022 (not as strong as a revenue-positive carbon pricing scheme, but still in the right direction)
However, the House proved a roadblock yet again. The ultimate compromise energy legislation included only a 2% increase from 2020 to 2030, after which it would fall back to the current 1%. This would take us to only 56% renewable energy by 2050 instead of 100%.
Loss…But a Battle Not Over
Revenue & Reinvestment
Progressive Mass members played a major role in the signature collection for the Fair Share amendment (or “millionaires tax”), which would have created a 4% surtax on income above $1 million (inflation-adjusted) to fund education and transportation investment.
As a citizen-originated ballot initiative for a constitutional amendment, the Fair Share amendment had to receive the support of at least 25% of the Legislature in two constitutional conventions. It secured well more than double this amount, but the Supreme Judicial Court struck it from the ballot this June.
Inaction
Medicare for All
Although the Senate took modest steps in the direction of single payer, passing legislation to create a public option (a MassHealth buy-in) and require a study of whether a single payer system would save money relative to the current system, the House took no such action.
Housing Production
Although the Senate passed a comprehensive zoning reform bill to increase housing production in the suburbs last session, no such action was taken in either house this session.
Debt/tuition-free Higher Education
The cost of higher education has grown a lot in Massachusetts, and the Legislature continues to punt.
In Conclusion: We won some, we lost some, and we’ll keep on fighting.
A budget is a statement of values. And the recently released House Ways & Means Budget shows that too many on Beacon Hill are content with the status quo of austerity and underinvestment.
Massachusetts lawmakers have fallen prey to the pernicious conservative ideology that taxes–our collective investment in our values and priorities–are always politically toxic. Instead of substantive conversations about how we invest in the infrastructure, services, and institutions that make Massachusetts a great place to live and work, our legislators instead year after year refuse to raise revenue — and leave the people of the Commonwealth begging for revenue crumbs of an ever smaller pie.
Yet, every legislator on Beacon Hill knows that Massachusetts has a revenue problem: when we do not take in enough revenue, we must cut budgets. Because of ill-conceived tax cuts over a decade ago (to the benefit of the wealthiest in MA), Revenue projections continue to fall short, leading to damaging cuts to vital services.
Those tax cuts have cost all of us over $3 billion each year. Each year! Our schools, the MBTA, roads, human services–think of what $3 billion a year could be doing to invest in job growth, education, public health, housing, transportation, and environmental protection.
Next week, when the House begins to vote on the budget, representatives will have the opportunity to take necessary steps to turn this around and to commit to the investments we need to make a Massachusetts that works for all.
Particularly, in the Age of Trump, where hostility to progressive values and policies is pervasive at the federal level, it’s more important than ever to make clear that the status quo is not working. Massachusetts needs to step up its game.
And to get legislators to start stepping up, we’re going to need YOUR help.
Call/email your representative by Monday morning to urge them to support the following ten budget amendments. The sample script is below; more info on each amendment appears after.
SAMPLE SCRIPT
I’m ___ from ___ . I’m calling to urge Rep __ to support budget amendments that support a strong Commonwealth. While these amendments would make a difference in the short term, I also want to urge my rep to fight for MORE REVENUE in the long term, including taxes on the wealthiest in Massachusetts.
Please support:
Amendments 42 and 43, which increase badly needed revenue
Amendments 780 and 382, which support housing assistance
Amendments 1003 and 1172, which invest in children and youth
Amendments 822 and 1182, which invest in equitable justice
Amendment 1196, which helps protect our environment
Amendment 151, which supports women’s health and family planning
Please share my concerns with the Rep. I will be paying attention to how s/he votes on these issues. Thank you.
Budget Amendments
Revenue
Amendment #42 (Rep. Denise Provost): Income Tax Rate Freeze.
This amendment would freeze the personal income tax rate at 2016 levels. From 2012 to 2016, we had four automatic income tax rate cuts, resulting in almost a billion dollar reduction in state revenue. These income tax reductions disproportionately benefit the super-rich, rather than working- and middle-class families: indeed, 20% of the rate reduction tax cuts go to the top 0.05% of Massachusetts residents.
Amendment #43 (Rep. Denise Provost): Educational Opportunity for All.
This amendment would subject any private institution of higher learning that has an endowment fund with aggregate funds in excess of $1 billion to an annual excise of 2.5% of all monies in aggregate in said endowment fund. The fund will be used exclusively for subsidizing the cost of higher education, early education, and child care for lower-income and middle-class residents of the commonwealth.
Affordable Housing
Amendment #780 (Rep. Paul Donato): MRVP funding
This amendment would restore funding for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program to $120 million from $100 million. This will increase the number of vouchers available, help preserve affordable housing developments, and restore the program to its 1990 funding level.
Amendment #382 (Rep. Mike Connolly): MRVP Improvements
This amendment makes technical changes to the way Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program funds are allocated, making the program more useful to people from a range of incomes in today’s very expensive housing market.
Education & Youth
Amendment #1003 (Rep. Alice Peisch): Early Educators Rate Increase
This amendment would increase the funding for the Early Education Rate Reserve, which increase reimbursement rates for subsidized early education and care providers, to $20 million from $15 million.
Amendment #1172 (Rep. Paul Brodeur): Youthworks
This amendment would increase the funding for the Youthworks program, which provides skills and training to young people through state-funded employment, to $13.5 million.
This amendment would increase 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.
Amendment #1182 (Rep. Mary Keefe): Job Training For Ex-Prisoners and Court Involved Youth
This amendment would increase funding for crucial programs to combat recidivism and create opportunities from $250,000 to $2 million.
Environmental Protection
Amendment #1196 (Rep. David Rogers): Department of Environmental Protection Administration and Compliance
This amendment would increase the operations budget for DEP from $24.4 million to $30 million. Recent budget cuts have forced staff reductions of 30% at DEP, crippling its ability to protect our to ensure clean air and water and enforce environmental laws. Given looming cuts to the EPA on the national level, we cannot afford such cuts anymore.
Public Health
Amendment #151 (Rep. Carole Fiola): Family Planning
This amendment would fund the family planning services line item at $5.8 million. Family planning funding helps providers offer a wide range of affordable preventative series, including critical screenings for breast, cervical, and other cancers; birth control and STI testing; and treatment for both men and women. With such vital services under the attack on the national level, it’s vital that Massachusetts push forward.
As the saying goes, a budget is a statement of values. The FY2019 budget from the MA House, released last week, makes some modest steps forward, but in others, is just standing still (which, as we all know, is another way of moving backwards). Over the past few years, our Democratic Legislature has too often taken its cues for the budget from our Republican governor rather than from the needs of communities around the state.
In other words, we can do better.
Legislators last week filed a litany of amendments to the budget, and we’ve highlighted the ones we found most important to advancing our progressive agenda for Massachusetts.
Next week, the MA House has the opportunity to improve the values statement of the FY 2019 budget by building on the recently passed criminal legal system reform, investing in public education, protecting our environment, and building strong communities for all.
Please ask your state representative to support the following amendments related to funding increases:
Building on Criminal Legal System Reform
Amendment 54 (Livingstone), which would provide funding for the Resolve to Stop the Violence Program, a restorative justice program in the Department of Corrections with proven benefits for reducing recidivism
Amendment 219 (Livingstone), which increases funding for community-based re-entry programs from $3 million to $5 million
Amendment 243 (Balser), which increases funding for the Massachusetts Legal Services Corporation (MLAC), which provides access to legal information, advice, and representation, for low-income MA residents, from $20m to $22m
Amendment 801 (Khan), which increases the funding for Juvenile Court Clinics, which provide mental health evaluation, consultation, and liaison services for children and families in the juvenile court system, from $3.5m to almost $10m
Investing in our Public Schools
Amendment 156 (Higgins), which would provide much-needed funding for public colleges and universities
Amendment 952 (Ultrino) / 977 (Coppinger), which would increase charter school tuition reimbursements for sending public school districts from $90m to $170m so that our public schools have the funding they need
Protecting Our Environment
Amendment 864 (Walsh, Chris), which increases the funding for the Department of Environmental Protection’s hazardous waste clean-up program by $2m
Building Strong Communities for All
Amendment 269 (Connolly), which would increase housing voucher rent caps to current fair market rents, get vouchers out faster, set aside a portion for extremely low-income households, and increase funding for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program overall
Amendment 640 (Ferrante), which increases funding for the Massachusetts Emergency Food Assistance Program by $2m to $20m
Amendment 743 (Peake), which would increase funding for Regional Transportation Agencies from 80m to $88m
Amendment 867 (Garlick), which would boost funding for Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Prevention services by $3.5 million, to $37.6 million, to increase access to culturally and linguistically appropriate crisis intervention and safety planning, legal services, and advocacy
Amendment 889 (Provost), which freezes the income tax at 5.1 percent. Automatic declines in the state income tax mean billions of dollars of lost revenue each year and less money to fund vital programs across the Commonwealth.
Amendment 950 (Koczera), which would increase funding for adult education and English classes (essential for new immigrants) by $1.9 million, to $34.5 million
Yes, You Can Enact Policy Through the Budget
The budget, importantly, is not just about appropriating funding. Legislators can also choose to enact policy through the budget. The following amendments would enact policy changes that would strengthen our public education system, treat all residents with dignity and respect, and foster safe, accessible, and sustainable communities:
Amendment 246 (Garballey), which would revise our outdated education funding formula along the lines of the the Foundation Budget Review Commission recommendations
Amendment 715 (Moran, Mike), which would ensure that immigrant students receive in-state tuition
Amendment 781 (Khan), which would set out punishment for police officers who have sex with individuals in police custody
Amendment 906 (Rogers, David), which requires the state to issue a report on measures necessary–including new staffing, monitoring, permitting and other measures–to address water pollution and comply with the federal Clean Water Act
Amendment 924 (Higgins), which would create new consumer protections for student loan borrowers and allow state to crack down on unscrupulous lenders
Amendment 925 (Walsh, Chris), which would allow local governments and regions of the state to, with local government and voter approval, levy taxes to fund transportation initiatives
Amendment 1005 (Muratore), which would provide initial funding and regulatory authority for the state to implement decommissioning of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
Amendment 1343 (Decker), which would mandate at least 20 minutes of recess for elementary school students
Amendment 1361 (Decker), which would lift the “cap on kids.” The “cap on kids”/”family cap” denies welfare support to children conceived while the family receives assistance. 8,700 Massachusetts children are currently harmed by this policy that many other states have already repealed
It’s Also Important to Prevent Bad Things
Finally, several amendments have been filed to roll back civil rights and civil liberties protection. Our state legislators need to OPPOSE these.
Amendments 113 (Lombardo), 227 (Diehl), and 347 (Lyons), which would would create even broader authority for police to detain immigrants or punish the 31 cities and towns that have adopted measures to limit police participation in immigration enforcement
Amendment 508 (Jones), which would attempt to pass Governor Baker’s unconstitutional proposal to overturn the Lunn decision via the budget
Amendments 515 (Jones) and 1174 (Markey), which would expand state wiretap powers to “listen in” on a wider range of personal communication
Amendment 979 (Howitt), which would curtail the right to free expression, namely the use of economic boycotts against foreign governments (Think: the boycott movement against apartheid South Africa)
Over to You
The House will start voting on amendments NEXT WEEK, so it’s important to take action soon. Email your State Representative TODAY about these amendments, and give them a follow-up call about the ones most important to you.
Chelmsford resident, member of Progressive Massachusetts
I have lived in Massachusetts my whole life. I am so proud of the many “firsts” that we have claimed, such as legalizing gay marriage and providing universal health coverage. So, when I hear that the Legislature will consider no increases to major taxes or fees for the upcoming fiscal year, I just don’t understand it.
As great as our state is, it is in need of many improvements to remain competitive and a place where people want to live and work. We need major infrastructure improvements to our buildings, roads, and highways. We need a complete overhaul of much of the MBTA. Most importantly, we need additional funding for our public schools.
If we cannot increase state revenues, we will never be able to pay for all the improvements we need. Massachusetts will not only be unable to fix what’s broken, but those deficiencies will continually get worse. We have to face the facts that this will require increased revenue.
Our state’s moniker of “Taxachusetts” is a relic of the 1970s. Since then, Massachusetts has reduced taxes by more than all but one other state. That lost revenue isn’t a mere abstraction. We can see it in MBTA service delays, roads and school buildings in disrepair, and a myriad of other results of chronic disinvestment.
I always like to use an analogy to the home budget. What if your car needed extensive work to keep it on the road, and you don’t have the money? Would you not even discuss the possibility of earning more money: working overtime or getting a temporary part-time job?
Currently Massachusetts already runs a deficit for spending vs. tax revenue. According to the PEW Charitable Trusts, our revenue totaled 96 percent of expenses with deficits in 10 out of 15 years, fiscal 2002 to 2016. That gap will continue to increase, putting the fiscal well-being of Massachusetts at risk. Under Governor Charlie Baker’s reserve policies, our bond rating was downgraded in 2017. We cannot afford to continue believing the fairy tale that somehow the money is going to magically appear.
I hope Speaker Robert DeLeo reconsiders his position against considering more taxes because more revenue is necessary to keep Massachusetts the safe, free, and progressive state it is.
Needham resident, community organizer, former Congressional aide, member of Progressive Massachusetts
It’s déjà vu on Beacon Hill.
The decades-long hostility towards raising additional revenue strikes again. It was just last fall that the Legislature let stand $210 million of the $320 million Governor Charles Baker vetoed from the fiscal 2018 budget. The slashing of that crucial spending was, unfortunately, a predictable byproduct of the Legislature’s refusal to implement new taxes or fees in fiscal 2017.
Even with those cuts, this year’s state budget is again facing a potential deficit. The government was forced to rely on temporary revenues and the underfunding of essential programs – like MassHealth, services for homeless families, and snow and ice removal – all while hoping there will somehow be an end-of-the-year surplus. No wonder US News and World Report ranks Massachusetts 48th for balancing its budget.
Budgets are supposed to reflect priorities, but instead of thinking big and investing in our future, we are stuck playing catch-up from previous shortages. The Commonwealth has a variety of complex problems requiring investment. Our transit system malfunctions regularly (even when it’s warm outside), schools grapple with overcrowding, affordable housing remains woefully insufficient, and the opioid crisis continues to devastate our communities.
But we also want to do more than put a band-aid on wounds that require surgery. We want to expand MBTA service, strengthen our schools, provide shelter for struggling families, and move towards universal health care. The last thing we need to do is shut the door on sources of much-needed revenue.
As we look to improve upon state services and protect the laws that make Massachusetts feel like home, we should look for creative opportunities to increase spending capabilities. Whether it be from pollutant fees or new corporate taxes, marijuana sales or tax-deductible donations to government institutions, there are innovative ways to generate sufficient revenue for a responsible budget that won’t hurt the people’s pockets. It would be irresponsible not to even consider, let alone refuse to explore new potential sources of revenue or raising existing ones.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo should work on a game plan rather than punt the ball on first down. Tax increases should definitely be on the table as we look to fix our broken budget.
One of our common refrains has been that we need to start investing in our Commonwealth. Misguided tax cuts and legislative inaction have led to revenue shortfalls that hamstring our efforts to make the long-term investments we need to ensure that everyone in Massachusetts can thrive.
So we were very pleased when the Legislature, in a joint constitutional convention, voted 134-55 to send the Fair Share amendment, or millionaire’s tax, to the 2018 ballot. This surtax on the state’s millionaires and billionaires will raise almost $2 billion per year for public education and transportation.
The vote was mostly the same as it was at last year’s constitutional convention. There was some variation in attendance, but the main change was that Rep. Jim Miceli of Wilmington went from a No to a Yes. Kudos to all of the activists in his district who have been pushing him!
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.
