Whose Side Is Your State Rep On?

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.