Why MA Needs a Public Bank

Tuesday, October 24, 2023

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

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 urge you to give a favorable report to S.632 / H.975: An Act to establish a Massachusetts public bank.

A Massachusetts public bank would strengthen local economies, especially those in underserved communities. It will help provide cost-effective financing for small businesses and municipalities, land trusts and cooperatives, and projects for climate change adaption and mitigation.

A public bank would put public money to work for the public. Much of our Commonwealth’s funds are deposited in the Massachusetts Municipal Depository Trust, which invests nationally and internationally. With a public bank, we could be bringing some of that money back home to Massachusetts in service of a more equitable and sustainable state and local economy.

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. Many small businesses are still struggling due to the disastrous economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. A public bank would be able to extend loans to small businesses, helping them to weather such difficult time 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.

Importantly, the bill recognizes that while all of these are exciting possibilities unlocked by a public bank, we need the right governance in place to make them a reality. That’s why the bill ensures that the board of advisors for the bank would represent the concerns of municipalities, underserved neighborhoods, small business, community development and community development finance, community banks and credit unions, sustainable agriculture and food security, workers’ interests, climate change and green finance, and environmental justice.

Thank you for all your work on today’s hearing. Again, we urge swift action to advance S.632 / H.975: An Act to establish a Massachusetts public bank.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

MA House and Senate Vote to Strengthen State’s Equal Pay Law

Massachusetts was the first state in the US to pass an equal pay law, all the way back in 1945, and the Legislature updated it in 2016 to prohibit employers from asking job applicants for salary history, prohibit employers from banning discussion of wage information, and require equal pay for comparable work.

But gender- and race-based pay gaps continue to exist in the workplace, and the House and Senate have taken action to strengthen the equal pay in response.

The Frances Perkins Workplace Equity Act, named after the first female Secretary of Labor in the US, would require employers with 25+ employees to disclose the salary or wage range for a position in all job postings, provide the salary range to employees offered promotions and transfers, and provide the pay range to employees for their current roles if requested.

It would also require covered employers with 100 or more employees to supply wage and demographic information to the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development. You can’t fix the inequities you do not see.

Earlier this month, on October 4, the House voted 148 to 8 to pass this bill.

The 8 NOs were all Republicans: Donnie Berthiaume (R-Spencer), Nicholas Boldyga (R-Southwick), David DeCoste (R-Norwell), Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica), Kelly Pease (R-Westfield), Michael Soter (R-Bellingham), Alyson Sullivan-Almeida (R-Abington), and Steven Xiarhos (R-Barnstable).

Yesterday (October 19), the Senate voted 39 to 1 to pass the bill, with the sole NO being Republican Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton).

MA House Votes 120 to 38 to Strengthen State’s Gun Laws

Last year, the right-wing US Supreme Court weakened states’ ability to pass strong gun safety laws by blocking New York’s handgun licensing law. At the end of last session, the MA Legislature passed legislation to ensure that MA’s gun laws would be compliant with the Supreme Court ruling, protecting them from legal challenge, but the situation also showed that the moment was ripe for revisiting how to strengthen MA’s gun laws overall.

Governor Deval Patrick signed a gun control omnibus package back in 2014, and an extreme risk protection order (ERPO), or “red flag,” bill was passed in 2018, allowing family members, housemates, and law enforcement officials to file temporary firearms restrictions in civil court. But there is more work to do.

As a result of impressive advocacy from the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action, and other groups, and the commitment of House Judiciary Chair Mike Day, the House passed a comprehensive gun violence prevention bill this Wednesday that continues MA’s leadership on this issue.

Among other steps, the bill does the following:

  • Strengthens MA’s assault weapons ban by expanding it to cover more firearms
  • Raises the age for possession of a semi-automatic long gun (rifle or shotgun) to 21
  • Prohibits all machine gun conversion devices or devices that increase the rate of fire of firearms
  • Cracks down on ghost guns by requiring that all firearms manufactured, assembled, possessed, purchased, or transferred into MA be serialized
  • Prohibits firearms in government buildings, polling places, and educational institutions, including higher education, and prohibits firearms on private property without express permission or signage
  • Expands the list of individuals eligible to file an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) to include licensed healthcare providers, school administrators, and employers
  • Strengthens data collection on firearms and firearm crimes
  • Establishes commissions to study the funding structure for community-based violence prevention services and the feasibility of microstamping (which imprints a unique identifier on bullet casings to help identify the gun used in specific incident) and smart gun technology (which includes various measures to ensure that only the rightful owner is using a gun, e.g., a thumb screen)

The final vote was 120 to 38.

Joining Republicans in voting against it were Democrats Shirley Arriaga (D-Chicopee), Brian Ashe (D-Longmeadow), Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Pat Haddad (D-Somerset), Kathy LaNatra (D-Kingston), Christopher Markey (D-Dartmouth), Rady Mom (D-Lowell), David Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Aaron Saunders (D-Belchertown), Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop), and Jonathan Zlotnik (D-Gardner).

Democrats Pat Kearney (D-Scituate) and John Rogers (D-Norwood) were not present.

Take Action: MA Needs Affordable, Accessible, High-Quality Child Care

Massachusetts has the most expensive childcare in the country. But that doesn’t have to be the case. We could have high-quality, accessible, affordable child care and early education.

The $20,913 average annual cost of infant care in Massachusetts is more than half of what a full-time minimum wage worker earns in a year, and more expensive than tuition at our public colleges and universities. With such high costs for just one child, families with multiple children are put in especially dire financial straits.

The system is also not working for early childhood educators, who often don’t receive a living wage, and child care providers, who face high operational costs and unstable funding. And when early childhood educators leave the field or providers close, that makes the system even less affordable and less accessible. We need a multi-faceted solution for a multi-faceted problem.

The Common Start bills would strengthen our commonwealth’s child care and early education infrastructure. They would provide stable funding for providers, ensuring greater access for families and supporting higher pay for educators. They would increase financial assistance to families offset the exorbitant costs of child care and early education.

The Committee held a hearing yesterday on these bills, but it’s not too late for you to submit testimony in support of the Common Start bills.

Can you write to the Education Committee today?

Use our testimony-writing tool here.

Build your own testimony here.

Common Start: A Multi-Faceted Solution to Our Child Care Crisis

Tuesday, October 17, 2023

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

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 urge you to give a favorable report to S.301 and H.489: An Act providing affordable and accessible high-quality early education and care to promote child development and well-being and support the economy in the Commonwealth (“Common Start”).

Massachusetts comes in #1 in various state rankings, and we have much to be proud of. But one #1 in which we should not take pride is that we have the most expensive child care in the country.

The $20,913 average annual cost of infant care in Massachusetts is more than half of what a full-time minimum wage worker earns in a year, and more expensive than tuition at our public colleges and universities. These costs are prohibitively expensive for low- and middle-income families, who are forced to choose between making ends meet and saving for the future on one hand, or affording child care on the other. With such high costs for just one child, families with multiple children are put in especially dire financial straits.

The system is also not working for early childhood educators, who often don’t receive a living wage, and child care providers, who face high operational costs and unstable funding. And when early childhood educators leave the field or providers close, that makes the system even less affordable and less accessible. We need a multi-faceted solution for a multi-faceted problem.

High-quality early education programs get results. Children benefit with enhanced resiliency and employment opportunities over their lifetimes. Providing children with high-quality early education and child care is one of the most effective ways to further a child’s success in grades K-12 and beyond—and that pays off in the long run.

The Common Start bills would strengthen our commonwealth’s child care and early education infrastructure. They would provide stable funding for providers, ensuring greater access for families and supporting higher pay for educators. They would increase financial assistance to families offset the exorbitant costs of child care and early education. In that regard, we would underscore the importance of a framework as offered in the Senate bill, which fully covers the cost of child care for the lowest-income families and caps the cost of child care at 7% of total income for working- and middle-class families.

These bills also include measures to incentivize the provision of care during nonstandard hours, build cultural competency training into the workforce development system, and better provide accommodations for students with disabilities. 

We were glad to hear Governor Healey, Senate President Karen Spilka, and Speaker Ron Mariano all underscore the importance of taking action on these issues in their opening speeches at the start of this legislative session. We urge you to take swift action to report out these bills so that can become a reality.

2023 Lowell Municipal Elections

2023 Lowell Municipal Elections

Solidarity Lowell invited City Council and School Committee candidates to fill out a questionnaire in advance of its 10/15 candidate forum.
 
Not sure of your district? You can find that out at www.wheredoivotema.com.
 

General Election: November 7, 2023

Councilors At-Large

Candidates:

  • Rita Mercier (incumbent)
  • Vesna Nuon (incumbent)
  • Corey Belanger
  • Erik Gitschier
  • Bobby Tugbiyele
  • Virak Uy

Voters can choose up to 3. Incumbent John Drinkwater is not running again.

Read the questionnaires:

Vesna Nuon
Corey Belanger
Virak Uy

District 2 Councilor

Candidates:

  • Corey Robinson (incumbent)
  • Marty Hogan

Read the questionnaires:

Marty Hogan

District 4 Councilor

Candidates:

  • Wayne Jenness (incumbent)
  • Amada Gregory

Read the questionnaires:

Wayne Jenness
Amada Gregory

District 5 Councilor

Candidates:

  • Kimberly Scott (incumbent)
  • Susie Chhoun

Read the questionnaires:

Susie Chhoun

District 7 Councilor

Candidates:

  • Paul Ratha Yem (incumbent)
  • Fru Nkimbeng

Read the questionnaires:

Fru Nkimbeng

District 1 School Committee Member

Candidates:

  • Stacey Thompson (incumbent)
  • Fred Bahou

Read the questionnaires:

Stacey Thompson
Fred Bahou
Return to Elections & Endorsements >>

Want to see more questionnaires?

Say No to Big Tech’s Anti-Labor Agenda

Last year, Big Tech companies like Uber and Lyft were getting millions of dollars together for a ballot initiative that would have undercut the rights of their drivers and set a dangerous precedent for workers nationally.

Fortunately, their 2022 ballot initiative — which would have permanently enshrined the misclassification of their drivers as “independent contractors” and denied them basic workplace protections — was knocked off the ballot by a court case. But Uber and Lyft are back at it, collecting signatures to get on the ballot next year.

Their bill — H.1848: An Act establishing rights and obligations of transportation network drivers and transportation network companies — mirrors their ballot initiative effort.

These companies have been fighting for years against providing fair pay and adequate benefits to their drivers, and this bill would entrench a system of low pay and lack of recourse for workplace mistreatment. Massachusetts has a history of strong labor laws, and it’s one we should continue.

Can you write to the Joint Labor & Workforce Committee to encourage them to reject this dangerous bill?

Email the Committee
Write your own testimony
 

Why the Healthy Youth Act Remains Important

Wednesday, October 11, 2023

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

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. 

I am writing today to urge you to give a favorable report to S.268/H.544: An Act relative to healthy youth (the “Healthy Youth Act”), filed by Sen. Sal DiDomenico and Reps. Jim O’Day and Vanna Howard. 

The Healthy Youth Act would require that school districts that offer sex education provide a curriculum that is age-appropriate, medically accurate, consent-informed, and LGBTQ-inclusive so that all students have the knowledge and tools they need to form healthy relationships. 

The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education recently updated the state’s health and physical education curriculum framework, and I was happy to see that it reflects this bill. 

However, although the updated curriculum framework is vital for school districts, it is not enough. The curriculum framework offers guidance, but not requirements. The Healthy Youth Act provides minimum standards with which school districts that teach sex ed must comply and contains critical provisions around data collection. 

We can’t wait another two decades for the next update to the health education curriculum, and the Healthy Youth Act establishes a process for routine updates. 

Thank you for all your work on today’s hearing, and I again urge you to give a favorable report to S.268/H.544, the Healthy Youth Act. 

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: Tackling Affordability Requires Investment

Wednesday, October 11, 2023

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

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 have heard a lot from the Legislature recently about wanting to take action on affordability, as the cost of living in Massachusetts has become increasingly unsustainable for many. However, contrary to recent steps, we cannot tax-cut our way into affordability. We need to invest. And that, of course, requires money.

We urge you to give a favorable report to the following bills:

  • S.1771 / H.2747: An Act granting a local option for a real estate transfer fee to fund affordable housing, filed by Sen. Jo Comerford and Rep. Mike Connolly.
  • S.1799 / H.2894: An Act providing for climate change adaptation infrastructure and affordable housing investments in the Commonwealth, filed by Sen. Jamie Eldridge and Rep. Sam Montaño
  • S.1834 / H.2824: An Act to support educational opportunity for all, filed by Sen. Adam Gomez, Rep. Natalie Higgins, and Rep. Christine Barber

Transfer Fee (S.1771/H.2747)

Our cities and towns need every tool in the toolbox to address our state’s housing crisis, and this bill would provide a crucial one. By imposing a small fee on high-end real estate transactions, communities will be able to provide much-needed funding to affordable housing trusts so that we can preserve and expand affordable housing stock. These bills recognize that each community’s housing situation is different and thus enable cities and towns to craft the proposal that best fits their community’s needs.

Cities and towns from across the Commonwealth have already filed home rule petitions to do this. When our cities and towns want to become places where people can afford to live at every stage of life, the State Legislature should support them, not be a roadblock. 

HERO bill (S.1799/H.2894)

This bill offers another tool for responding to our affordable housing crisis and, moreover, recognizes the need for not just affordable housing but green and healthy communities as well.

Initiated by the Housing and Environment Revenue Opportunities (HERO) Coalition, it would raise the deeds excise fee to a value still lower than comparable fees in Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont to raise dedicated revenue for climate resilience and affordable housing.

The estimated $300 million from this bill could go toward steps like creating or preserving additional housing for 18,000 working-class homeowners and renters over 10 years; financing hundreds of millions of dollars in competitive, flexible grants to localities for climate resilience and mitigation; or assisting between 3,500 and 6,500 additional extremely low-income families per year with housing vouchers or project-based rental assistance.

Educational Opportunity for All (S.1834/H.2824)

Massachusetts is lucky to be home to many world-class 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 given the fact that such private universities will only ever educate a small percentage of the Commonwealth’s residents.

The endowment of Harvard University stood at over $50 billion last year; MIT, over $20 billion.

These bills recognize that such affluent institutions have the ability to contribute more. They would put a small excise fee on the part of a university’s endowment over $1 billion to create dedicated revenue for a fund subsidizing the cost of higher education, early education, and child care for lower-income and middle-class residents of the commonwealth.

Governor Healey and House and Senate leaders have all spoken about wanting to take action on the exorbitant cost of child care, early education, and higher education, and this bill offers a sensible and dependable way of raising the funds to do so.

Thank you for all your work on today’s hearing, and again, we urge you to swiftly advance these bills.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Drivers are Workers, and It’s as Easy as A-B-C

Tuesday, October 10, 2023

Chair Jehlen, Chair Cutler, and Members of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development: 

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. 

I am writing today in opposition to H.1848, An Act establishing rights and obligations of transportation network drivers and transportation network companies. 

Massachusetts has very clear standards for determining independent contractor standards (the “ABC test”), and Big Tech companies like Uber and Lyft 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 and Lyft 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.

This bill would deny app-based gig workers a living wage, benefits, legal rights, and anti-discrimination protections. 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