Testimony: Our Investments Can Advance Our Values

Tuesday, November 18, 2025 

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

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I’m the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy organization fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.736/H.1114: An Act to establish a Massachusetts public bank and H.1264/S.767: An Act promoting responsible investment. These bills help ensure that our commonwealth uses our financial resources to align with our values. 

Why a Public Bank (S.736/H.1114)

A Massachusetts public bank would help advance the goal of equitable economic development. Here are a few key ways. 

A Massachusetts public bank would strengthen local economies, especially those in underserved communities. A public bank would not be competing with the existing banking system. It fills in the gaps and creates new opportunities for existing banks. Such a bank would help provide cost-effective financing for small businesses and municipalities, land trusts and cooperatives, and projects for climate change adaptation and mitigation–taking on projects that may have more difficult access to early capital due to lack of connections or higher risks. 

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. Although it can seem like a long time ago already, the COVID-19 pandemic was brutal for our small businesses. A public bank would be able to extend loans to small businesses, helping them to weather such difficult times 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. As the federal government retrenches its support, increased state resources will become critical. 

Responsible Investment (H.1264/S.767)

Our Commonwealth’s investments should align with our values and our priorities. Funding weapons of mass destruction that are causing countless deaths right now and will continue to cause harm into the future. 

Funding these weapons is also antithetical to our state’s environmental and climate commitments: few things are as environmentally destructive as war. 

By divesting our public dollars from these pernicious investments, we can make a strong statement, redirect our resources to creating the better world we want to see, and — also important from a financial perspective — eliminate any liability or entanglement with war crimes committed through our public dollars. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: Our Minimum Wage is Not a Living Wage

Monday, November 17, 2025

Chair McMurtry, Chair Oliveira, and Members of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development:  

I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is 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.1349/H.2107: An Act relative to raising the minimum wage closer to a living wage in the commonwealth. 

In 2018, Massachusetts set an example for other states and the country by passing a $15 minimum wage. As of January 2023, the full increase had taken effect, but $15 has lost significant purchasing power due to the rising cost of food, utilities, rent, and other basic necessities. Indeed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, today’s minimum wage would need to be almost $20 to have the same purchasing power as $15 in July 2018. 

The $15 minimum wage, while an improvement, is also not a living wage. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, a living wage for a single adult with no children would be $28.88 per hour. When children enter the picture, that threshold for meeting basic needs gets higher and higher. Moreover, if the minimum wage did rise in step with productivity growth since 1968, it would have met this standard for a living wage. 

It’s time to raise the minimum wage again. These bills would raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour and index it to inflation, so that the value does not erode over time. Moreover, these bills correct a glaring omission from the last minimum wage increase: the exclusion of municipal workers. Paraprofessionals and cafeteria workers in some municipalities are still not receiving a minimum wage (let alone a living wage), and we should not be allowing such carveouts. All workers deserve a living wage, and this increase would move us in the right direction.

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

THE FIGHT CONTINUES: Tell the MA House: Don’t Do Trump’s Dirty Work

On Wednesday, the MA House’s Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy (TUE) advanced a bill that would gut the state’s commitment to clean energy.

WHAT’S IN THE BILL?

Here’s what the bill does:

  • Rolls back 2030 climate goals rollback
  • Guts Mass Save, removing decarbonization and electrification from its directive, reducing its budget, and adding incentives for gas furnaces back into the bill
  • Reduces the Renewable Portfolio Standard (clean energy requirement) from 3% to 1% growth each year
  • Removes a moderate-income discount electric rate that would save people money
  • Adds ‘cost effectiveness” tests to everything, and removes the social cost of carbon from calculations, putting a finger on the scale against climate solutions
  • Prevents pollution reduction payments (alternative compliance payments) from going to clean energy projects
  • Creates a “pipeline tax” – charging electric customers for gas pipeline supply
  • Repeals a landmark protection from new nuclear power facilities

Despite all of that, the vote was 7-0.

HOW DID THE COMMITTEE VOTE?

The 7 Democrats who voted to roll back our clean energy and energy efficiency commitments were House TUE Chair Mark Cusack (D-Braintree), Vice Chair Michael Kushmerek (D-Fitchburg), Bill MacGregor (D-West Roxbury), Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop), Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Chynah Tyler (D-Roxbury), and Sean Reid (D-Lynn). If your state rep is on that list, make sure they hear your disappointment.

Two Democrats on the committee–Rep. Natalie Higgins (D-Leominster) and Rep. Margaret Scarsdale (D-Pepperell)–refused to join the bad policy bandwagon. In State House jargon, they “reserved their rights.” In plain language, they sent a clear message of “I’m not willing to support this bill as written.” If you are in their districts, make sure to thank them.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

We need to redouble our commitment to climate action, not walk it back. And the State House needs to hear that.

Can you let your state rep know it’s time to strengthen, not weaken, our climate commitments?

Senate Votes 35-3 to Combat Politically Motivated Book Banning

The Senate voted 35-3 to address the rise of politically motivated book bans. The bill — An Act regarding free expression — creates clear guidelines for how schools and libraries decide which books to make available, and how local leaders determine whether a book is appropriate or should be removed from the shelf. 

The bill recognizes that teachers and librarians are trusted experts and should be treated as such and that personal, political, and doctrinal views should not be governing which books are allowed to be on the shelf.

Local school districts and municipal public libraries would have the flexibility to craft their own policies that align with state protocols and the standards of the American Library Association. For school libraries, an appropriate process for considering whether to remove a book would include assurance that a challenged book remains available to library patrons while the process plays out, guarding against frivolous or unfounded complaints. 

The bill also protects librarians and school employees from retaliation over their selection of library books and requires tracking of book challenges statewide to monitor the issue.

Voting NO were Republicans Kelly Dooner (R-Taunton), Peter Durant (R-Spencer), and Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton).

During floor debate, the Senate voted unanimously (37-0) for Sen. Cindy Creem’s amendment to grant authors the right to challenge the removal of their works from schools and libraries

Several Republican amendments rightfully failed:

  • 6-32 on Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)’s typo-ridden amendment to increase bureaucracy for schools and libraries. Note also that this amendment’s requirement of notification of “at least two parents or guardians” for every student is a disappointing demonization of single parents. Democrat Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) joined the five Republicans in voting for it.
  • 7-30 on Sen. Peter Durant (R-Spencer)’s amendment to increase the administrative burden on school committees facing book challenges. Democrats Barry Finegold (D-Andover) and Michael Moore (D-Millbury) joined Republicans.
  • 5-32 on Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)’s amendment to make it more difficult to challenge book bans and again 5-32 on his amendment to increase the administrative burden on school committees

Testimony: Cities and Towns Want the Right to Rank.

Thursday, November 13, 2025 

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

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I’m the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy organization fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.531: An Act providing a local option for ranked choice voting in municipal elections. 

Democracy in this country needs strengthening. We see the need for that every single day, and for us to have a robust, participatory, inclusive democracy, we must start at the local level. 

Cities and towns across Massachusetts are doing just that. By passing home rule petitions for ranked choice voting, they are embracing a time-tested reform that makes our elections both more competitive and more collegial. 

Ranked choice voting can inspire more candidates to run by eliminating “spoiler” effects, discourages negative campaigning, and ensures that voters don’t need to become dime-store game theorists thinking about how other people will vote before casting their own ballot. 

When cities and towns want to strengthen democracy, the Commonwealth should embrace the opportunity to say yes. Cities like Easthampton and Cambridge already employ ranked choice systems, and this enabling legislation would make it easier for other communities seeking to do so as well. 

I could speak to the merits of ranked choice voting for a while, but what’s at stake in this bill is really something else. Do we believe in local democracy? 

Your lives as legislators are better off, and cities and towns are better off, if you aren’t bogged down with having to approve home rule petitions about policies that some cities and towns already have. Enabling legislation, or local option legislation, like this sets clear parameters for what cities and towns can do, and then puts the power in people on the ground and their local elected officials to make the decision that’s best for them. It, in other words, gives clear choice, that central hallmark of democracy at any level. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: Say No to Gas, Yes to a Just Transition

Thursday, November 13, 2025 

Chair Barrett, Chair Cusack, and Members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I’m the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy organization fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.3547/S.2290: An Act preventing gas expansion to protect climate, community health and safety. 

As we speak, the 30th COP conference of the United Nations Climate Change Conference is taking place in Brazil. Countries from across the world are discussing how to make their climate pledges into climate realities and how to muster collective global action to address the climate crisis. Notably absent, of course, is the United States. 

This year so far, we have seen the Trump administration take countless steps to sabotage our response to the climate crisis and our transition to clean energy. The Trump administration is seeking to rig the future for heavy-polluting fossil fuel companies and deny present and future generations the blessings of cleaner water, cleaner air, and good-paying jobs. We need you to not join them and, instead, to chart a different path in line with our commonwealth’s promises and values.

This bill would prevent new gas facility construction or expansion near environmental justice neighborhoods because we know that we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground (and have known that for decades) and that the communities that have borne the burden of pollution for decades should not be forced to continue to do so. 

But this bill is not just about saying NO. It is about saying YES to what the future can be. 

It centers a vision of a just transition, one in which we usher in a clean energy economy with good-paying jobs that does not leave people behind. The bill requires gas companies to submit just transition plans, including not only measures to meet zero-emissions goals but also measures to do right by their workforce through workforce development, training, staffing, pension system solvency, and other steps. It creates a training fund for workers in the clean energy economy. And it creates a Just Transition Office to guide this energy and economic transformation. 

Time and time again, when Massachusetts voters are surveyed, they say that they want strong action on the climate crisis, and they know that our future is with clean energy. 

We need to continue the progress from recent years on that front, not do Trump’s dirty work for him with more fossil fuels and abandoned commitments. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: Educating for the Whole Child

Wednesday, November 12, 2025 

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

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I’m the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy organization fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.374: An Act empowering students and schools to thrive and S.409/H.726: An Act to establish a community schools special legislative commission. 

Massachusetts has a bedrock constitutional commitment to public education as well as a legal responsibility to provide a quality education to all students. However, we are still living under misguided policies that work against that commitment and that vision, such as state takeovers. 

State takeovers have not improved outcomes for students; to the contrary, takeovers have made decision-making less democratic; imposed a stigma on districts; disempowered parents, educators, school leaders, and elected school committee members; and increased teacher turnover. They weaken the bonds between schools and communities. Compounding all this harm, they have failed to yield any long-term improvements in student test scores or, more fundamentally and more importantly, learning. 

Cities with higher populations of Black, Brown, and immigrant students have been those targeted with state takeovers, perpetuating existing inequalities between districts. 

Last year’s vote on Question 2 showed that voters don’t support the “test and punish” approach to education that is too often just a tool for privatization. 

At the same time as we abandon the harmful education policies of two decades ago that have led to no lasting gains and instead cemented inequalities, we can also embrace a better vision for education. 

The Community Schools model offers such a vision. It recognizes that schools should be spaces where parents, students, educators, and community members can come together to provide services and support to meet the needs of our students and schools. The model understands that students thrive best in the classroom when they are in strong communities and have access to robust services, that for students to learn, they need to be healthy and supported, and that parents, educators, and students know their needs best. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

Take Action: When It Rains, You Use the Rainy Day Fund ☔☔☔

It’s raining! Federal budget cuts are already devastating Massachusetts families, and the worst is yet to come.

This month, more than 1 million Massachusetts residents — overwhelmingly children, seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans — have faced hunger and fear because of the Trump Administration’s cruel attacks on SNAP benefits during the federal shutdown. More than 337,000 residents are facing skyrocketing health insurance costs due to the loss of federal subsidies beginning in January.

And that’s just the start. Up to 350,000 people in Massachusetts risk losing their Medicaid coverage, and up to 104,000 risk losing access to SNAP food assistance altogether, due to massive cuts to Medicaid and SNAP in the OBBA tax bill passed this summer. Federal cuts to PreK-12 schools, colleges, and childcare could hurt more than 1 million students. And Massachusetts is set to lose as much as $3.5 billion in annual federal aid once cuts to Medicaid and SNAP are fully phased in — blowing a massive hole in the state budget.

Cuts to healthcare, food assistance, and education threaten all of us, but we are not helpless. We need Beacon Hill to prioritize the people of Massachusetts over multinational corporations’ profits and prevent the worst of these devastating budget cuts.

Join Raise Up this week to take action:

  ☔ RAINY DAY ACTION ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13TH: Please join the Raise Up Massachusetts Coalition for a rally where we ask state legislators to use just 15% (~$1.2B) of the state’s reserve fund (a.k.a. the ‘Rainy Day Fund’) to offset devastating federal cuts to SNAP, education, and healthcare. RSVP HERE PLEASE.

PHONE BANK ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13TH: Can’t join us on Thursday in person? We got you covered! Join us to for a phone bank to help drive calls and emails to legislators to pass Corporate Fair Share and use the Rainy Day Fund! RSVP HERE PLEASE.

CLICK TO EMAIL ACTION TO LEGISLATORS: Got some extra time before and after the Thursday actions? Take 2 minutes to email the Governor and your legislators in support of Corporate Fair Share and using the Rainy Day fund here. In solidarity,

Tell Your State Rep: Don’t Cave on Climate Action

Tuesday’s election had inspiring results in Massachusetts and across the country. In election after election, we saw that voters want their elected officials to stand up to the chaos, cruelty, and corruption of the Trump administration. Voters want elected officials who fight, not back down.

That memo needs to get to Beacon Hill.

On Friday, the Massachusetts House Energy Chair, Rep. MarkCusack (D-Braintree), told Commonwealth Beacon that he is considering repealing our critical state commitments to climate pollution reductions in an upcoming energy bill.

This is unacceptable and dangerous, especially as we see the Trump administration sabotage any recent federal progress on climate action. State leadership is even more important than it was before.

We need to redouble our commitment to climate action, not walk it back. And the State House needs to hear that.

Can you let your state rep know it’s time to strengthen, not weaken, our climate commitments?

PM in the News: “State legislators pledged efficiency, but critics expected more amid Trump’s attacks on Mass.”

Chris Van Buskirk, “State legislators pledged efficiency, but critics expected more amid Trump’s attacks on Mass.,” WBUR, November 4, 2025.

Jonathan Cohn, political director at Progressive Mass, said Democrats knew before the 2024 election what the Trump administration planned to do to states like Massachusetts.

“It’s striking that in our state, in Massachusetts, where we have, as I often like to point out, the third largest Democratic super majority in the country after Hawaii and Rhode Island, our Legislature isn’t doing very much,” Cohn said in an interview.