“Those solutions share one thing in common: they all require money.”

Money

Tuesday, May 16, 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. 

This year so far, the Legislature’s discussion about “tax reform” has centered on how to roll back taxes. The framing of “tax relief” has unfortunately warped discussion of the major issues facing our Commonwealth. “Tax relief” implies that taxes are a burden harming our Commonwealth rather than our collective investments in our collective well-being. And the framing of “tax relief” displaces discussion from the real burdens faced by residents of the Commonwealth: the high cost of housing, the high cost of health care, the high cost of child care, the high cost of higher education, long hours in traffic, a malfunctioning transit system—the list goes on. 

Addressing those true burdens that Commonwealth residents face requires many disparate policy solutions, but they share one thing in common: they all require money. If we want to ensure that our students get the best education possible from pre-K to postsecondary, that everyone has the best health care possible, that everyone has a safe roof over their head, that everyone can get to where they need to go efficiently, cleanly, and safely, that everyone has clean air to breathe, then we need to raise the revenue to do it. Our new Governor has outlined proposals to move us closer to such goals, but they will exist only on paper if not backed by funding. 

As such, we urge you to broaden the discussion of “tax reform” to think about how the Commonwealth can make a more progressive tax code that enables us to do right by all our residents. 

Please give a favorable report to the following bills: 

  • H.2708/S.1925: An Act to close corporate tax loopholes and create progressive revenue (Barber & Uyterhoeven / Rausch)   
  • H.2743 / S.1835: An Act establishing a tiered corporate minimum tax (Connolly / Gomez)    
  • H.2967 / S.1858: An Act establishing a tax on excessive executive compensation (Uyterhoeven / Lewis)  
  • H.2856 / S.1788: An Act relative to restoring corporate tax rates (Keefe / DiDomenico)
  • H.2725/S.1875: An Act requiring public disclosures by publicly-traded corporate taxpayers (Capano / Miranda)

To provide a quick note on each of these bills: 

  • H.2708 and S.1925 would increase the share of GILTI income (“Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income,” or offshored income made in Massachusetts) that the state taxes from 5% to 50%. This could raise up to $450 million in additional revenue each year and would bring us in line with Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. 
  • The corporate minimum tax—namely, the tax that corporations pay if they are able to wipe away all tax obligations through accounting tricks—is $456 and hasn’t budged since 1989 (the year after I was born, I might add). H.2743 and S.1835 would create a tiered structure for this minimum tax so that large corporations are paying their fair share. 
  • By imposing additional taxes on corporations with excessive imbalances in how much they pay their C-suite executives versus their median employees, H.2967 / S.1858 would both raise revenue and reduce the Commonwealth’s sky-high income inequality. 
  • A decade ago, Massachusetts lowered the tax rate on corporate profits from 9.5% to 8.0%. H.2856 and S.1788 would reverse that change to, again, make sure corporations are paying their fair share. According to MassBudget, each 1 percentage point increase in the rate could generate between $200 -$300 million in additional annual tax revenue. 
  • Large corporations pay teams of lawyers to help them avoid paying taxes. We know that this problem exists, but without disclosure, we cannot understand the totality of the problem and best calibrate our response. The disclosure requirements required in H.2725/S.1875 would help us do that. 

Our Commonwealth has the resources to ensure the best for all our residents, but we need to commit to realizing such a vision through our policy.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

“Transparency is essential to closing persistent gender and racial pay inequities.”

Wage Equity Now

Tuesday, May 9, 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.

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

H.1849/S.1191: An Act relative to salary range transparency / An Act relative to pay range disclosure

H.1940/S.1181: An Act relative to transparency in the workplace

These bills would build on past progress toward gender and racial equity in Massachusetts workplaces. 

The first set of bills would require employers to disclose salary ranges to employees who ask for them when hiring for positions, and the latter set would require companies and municipalities to submit their federally required EEOC data to the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office. This information would then be combined with statewide figures to provide aggregate and accurate reports of the wage gaps within various business sectors that can be seen and understood both by workers and employers.

Transparency is essential to closing persistent gender and racial pay inequities. If we can’t identify the existence and extent of disparities within and across industries, it is difficult to make and track progress. We cannot change what we do not measure.

Moreover, studies have repeatedly shown the importance of pay range transparency to enabling prospective employees to better negotiate for fair compensation. 

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington have all already passed pay range disclosure laws. For Massachusetts to have a competitive and equitable economy, we should join them.

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts  

“More and more residents are unable to afford to live in our commonwealth anymore”

Green affordable housing

Tuesday, May 9, 2023 

Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and Members of the Joint Committee on Housing: 

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 see it all the time in polls, we hear it on the doors, and we see it in the data: Massachusetts has a housing crisis. More and more residents are unable to afford to live in our commonwealth anymore, priced out from one community to another and then out entirely, or face severe housing instability. 

We need a comprehensive approach to the housing crisis, and strong protections for tenants must be a part of it. We urge you to give a favorable report to the following bills: 

S.864/H.1731: An Act promoting access to counsel and housing stability in Massachusetts

S.956/H.1690: An Act promoting housing opportunity and mobility through eviction sealing (HOMES)

Right to Counsel (S.864/H.1731): These bills would provide legal representation for low-income tenants and low-income owner-occupants in eviction proceedings. The eviction moratorium that the Legislature passed earlier in the pandemic was a vital lifeline for so many, but eviction filings have now been climbing past what they were in 2019, pre-pandemic. Tenants enter such eviction proceedings at a major disadvantage: according to FY2022 Trial Court data, while 86% of landlords are represented, only 11.5% of tenants are represented. Tenants facing eviction are disproportionately poor, female, and BIPOC, and evictions can have lasting negative impacts on physical and mental health. Connecticut, Maryland, and Washington have already passed Right to Counsel policies, and Massachusetts should join them. 

HOMES Act (S.956/H.1690): Having an eviction record is creating a devastating barrier for tenants looking for housing. Records are created as soon as a case is filed and are publicly available forever––regardless of the outcome. These records impact people’s ability to obtain housing, credit, and employment, harming many, especially women and people of color. 

Regardless of whether one does anything wrong or is actually evicted, being party to an eviction or housing case is being unfairly held against tenants when they try to rent a new place. Even winning in court hurts tenants. However, there is no current process by which a tenant can seal an eviction record, as there already is in states such as California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, and Texas. 

Notably, the Legislature already passed language around eviction sealing in early 2021, only for it to fail to become law due to a last-minute veto by former governor Charlie Baker. We urge you not to wait longer before bringing this issue back up, and we urge you to strengthen the language of these bills to allow eviction sealing to be automatic in certain cases, as opposed by merely by petition: the families facing eviction are least likely to be able to navigate a maze of paperwork. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

“Senators Should Treat This Report as a Red Light”

Earlier this week, Massachusetts reported April state tax revenues $1.6 billion short of what officials originally projected.

As Raise Up Massachusetts said in a statement, “Senators should treat this report as a red light. Rather than cutting taxes for the wealthy, they should focus on making sustainable investments in affordability for working families.”

In the face of a possible economic downturn and a debt-ceiling showdown (and possible looming government shutdown) on the federal level, continuing to move forward with tax cuts for the ultra-rich and large corporations isn’t just inequitable — it’s reckless, setting our state up for deep cuts to necessary programs and services.

Can you write to your state senator today about opposing tax cuts for the ultra-rich and large corporations?

Even better: Make a call! You can find your senator’s phone number here and a phone script at https://raiseupma.us/script.

And when you’re done: Can you think of three friends to reach out to as well?

“A right to reproductive health care is not a real right unless every individual is able to access that care”

May 2, 2023

Rep. James M. Murphy, Co-Chair Senator Paul Feeney, Co-Chair 

Joint Committee on Financial Services Joint Committee on Financial Services

Massachusetts State House, Room 254 Massachusetts State House, Room 

Boston, MA 02133 Boston, MA 02133

Dear Chairs Murphy, Feeney, and members of the Joint Committee on Financial Services:

We, the undersigned organizations committed to advancing reproductive freedom, equity, and justice in the Commonwealth, write today in support of H.1137 filed by Representatives Sabadosa and Balser and S.646 filed by Senator Friedman. 

Massachusetts law, as currently written, requires insurers to offer coverage for childbirth and treatment of miscarriages, but permits cost sharing. For too many mothers and families navigating high deductible plans and increased out-of-pocket spending, the burden of this cost sharing results in long-term financial struggles.

Under this legislation, all Massachusetts-regulated health insurance plans would be required to cover the full spectrum of pregnancy-related care without any cost-sharing, ensuring that Bay Staters are not saddled with insurmountable debt post-pregnancy and enabling them to have greater control over their lives and financial futures. We are grateful to the Legislature for its bold action to ensure coverage without cost-sharing for all abortion and abortion-related care, a key provision of Chapter 127 of the Acts of 2022. Now, we must go further to break down financial barriers to all pregnancy-related care. 

A right to reproductive health care — including care for all pregnancies, abortion, and miscarriage — is not a real right unless every individual is able to access that care, free from cost barriers. Being a new parent is tough enough. The last thing someone adjusting to life with a newborn needs to worry about is how they’re going to pay for the care they just received. 


According to the Massachusetts Center for Health Information and Analysis’ (CHIA) 2021 Massachusetts Health Insurance Survey, more than 1.7 million people in Massachusetts are on high deductible health plans. That’s 1.7 million people…

  • Who may never be able to get out of debt once they start a family;
  • Who could be forced to meet their deductible twice if the nine months of their pregnancy falls across two insurance plan years;
  • Who may be forced to forgo prenatal or postpartum care because of costs;
  • Who may delay family planning because they are too concerned about making ends meet; or most cruelly,
  • Who would be sent a hefty bill days after suffering the devastating loss of  miscarriage. 

The futures of people seeking pregnancy care should not be dictated by deductibles. 

This is an issue of gender and racial equity. Massachusetts is already combatting an epidemic of racial inequities in maternal health. Black women in our state are twice as likely as white women to die from pregnancy-related complications, and financial barriers to care are compounding these poor health outcomes. Forty percent of mothers have reported delaying prenatal care because they lack the money or insurance to cover the visits. Newborns of mothers who do not receive prenatal care are three times more likely to have a low birth weight and five times more likely to die than children born to mothers who receive prenatal care. We must reimagine our health care system and health care spending to center and support the needs of birthing people, families, and Black and Brown communities by making all pregnancy care more accessible. 

Based on CHIA’s Mandated Benefit Review of this legislation, we can make high-quality pregnancy-related care accessible to all Bay Staters for only an extra $2.09 per month on our monthly health insurance premiums—less than a cup of coffee. We don’t have to imagine a Massachusetts where everyone has access to the pregnancy care they need to safely give birth and raise a family; where fewer of our loved ones die from pregnancy-related care; and where no one has to go into debt to start a family. All we have to do to make this our reality is pay an extra $25 a year on our health insurance premiums.

Every Bay Stater must have access to the full spectrum of pregnancy-related care so we all can decide if, when, and how to have a family or raise children. We can ensure that our friends, families, loved ones, children, and children’s children would be safer, happier, and healthier, because pregnancy-related care would be so much more accessible to them.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our testimony, and we again urge you to give H.1137 and S.646 a favorable report.

Respectfully,

Rebecca Hart Holder, President, Reproductive Equity Now

Carol Rose, Executive Director, ACLU of Massachusetts

Nate Horwitz-Willis, Executive Director, Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts

Luu Ireland, MD, MPH, Chair, Massachusetts Section of the American College of Obstetricians and 

Gynecologists

Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director, Progressive Massachusetts

Jeremy Burton, Chief Executive Officer, Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston

MASSter List: “Massachusetts sees fewer competitive races than any other state, advocates say democratic process ‘suffers’

Erin Tiernan, “Massachusetts sees fewer competitive races than any other state, advocates say democratic process ‘suffers’,” MASSter List, May 2, 2023.

“The fact that we so rarely have contested elections here in Massachusetts does a disservice to the democratic process,” said Jonathan Cohn of Progressive Massachusetts, noting Beacon Hill’s reputation for top-down management and back-room dealmaking.

Legislate Every Day Like It’s May Day

Happy May Day! May 1st marks International Workers’ Day, a day commemorating the struggles and gains made by workers and the labor movement.

Labor organizing in the US was behind the achievement of the weekend, of workplace safety laws, of the minimum wage, of the social safety net, of paid leave, and of so much more and has been crucial to any campaign for a fairer economy and a more robust political democracy.

And the fight continues.

Here are just a few things the Massachusetts Legislature could do this session to strengthen workers’ rights:

  • Raising the minimum wage to $20 per hour to bring it closer to a living wage, and then indexing it to inflation so that its value doesn’t erode over time
  • Strengthening enforcement of wage theft laws and holding companies accountable for wage theft committed by subcontractors
  • Extending collecting bargaining rights to State House staff
  • Requiring employers to publicly report their wage data, to provide information essential to measuring our progress toward racial and gender wage equity

Can you write to your state legislators today about the importance of such a pro-worker agenda this session?

Legislate every day like it's May Day

News Roundup – April 29, 2023

Diti Kohli, “Boston thrives off the dreams of young people. But can they make it here?,” Boston Globe, April 25, 2023.

“It’s not a coincidence. Part of the exodus can be attributed to the pandemic and the usual ebb and flow of students and footloose young people from the city. But many agreed that the soaring cost of living here is a major factor….Baby boomers and Gen Xers benefited from economic conditions that do not exist for millennials. And by many measures, the path ahead for Gen Z, born between 1997 and 2012, is even more fraught.”

“Tide is turning, rightly, to considering voting rights behind bars” (Letters), Boston Globe, April 24, 2023.

“Allowing incarcerated people to civically engage contributes to rehabilitation, which benefits everyone in Massachusetts. The idea of denying civic engagement for the sake of punishment belongs in the ash heap of history.”

Andrew Brinker, “Rent control battle looms but it’s never been easy to pass tenant protections on Beacon Hill,” Boston Globe, April 23, 2023.

“And yet as Boston’s supercharged housing market transforms lower-income corners of the city, there are few formal mechanisms in place to keep vulnerable renters in their homes. Policies that have long been on the books in other high-cost cities, such as prohibiting so-called “no cause” evictions or allowing tenants the opportunity to buy their building when it goes up for sale, have gone nowhere in Boston, often because such measures also need approval from the state Legislature. “

Bill McKibben, “A Massachusetts Town Leads a Way Out of the Housing Crisis,” New Yorker, April 19, 2023.

“My family lives in multifamily housing; without it, we wouldn’t be able to live here in Lexington,” he said. “When my family dealt with financial hardship and eventual homelessness, we were told by many people in this town that we didn’t belong in Lexington and we should move somewhere else. How do you think it makes me feel when some people from a point of great privilege say that they don’t want the type of multifamily housing that I live in because it looks ugly?”

Emma Platoff and Matt Stout, “Massachusetts Legislature, hostile to rent control, includes more landlords than renters,” Boston Globe, April 21, 2023.

“Figures compiled by the Globe suggest that dozens of legislators may have a conflict on major housing policy proposals as they weigh their own financial interests alongside the needs of their constituents. A top-down government body that often moves at a plodding pace even on pressing issues, the Legislature has sometimes been a place where major housing policy proposals go to die.”

Nina Lev, “Needs of the many outweigh the desires of a few” (Letter), Boston Globe, April 19, 2023.

“Don’t these citizens already live in comfortable homes, send their children to good schools, and enjoy nice vacations? Wouldn’t their lives, like those of the rest of us, be enhanced by providing secure housing and great educational opportunities to all of the Commonwealth’s children? Like the rest of us, don’t they wantreliable transportation, environmentally sustainable infrastructure, public art, and glorious parks? Until we can fully fund all these priorities, shouldn’t we hold off on talking about refunds to the most fortunate?”

John Hilliard, “In the MBTA’s proposed $9.2 billion spending plan, transit advocates argue more funds are needed for expansion,” Boston Globe, April 12, 2023.

“Stacy Thompson, the executive director of LivableStreets Alliance, said the T must balance both near-term safety and maintenance, while also working on expansion….“Things like expansion and resiliency are not extras, or nice to have. They should be considered core to the viability of the system,”Thompson said.”

Peter Coy, “The 100-Year-Old Reason U.S. Housing Is So Expensive,” New York Times, April 14, 2023.

“Once a neighborhood is zoned for single-family detached homes, it almost always stays that way, even when a city’s growth makes such low density inefficient. Los Angeles permits the building of only detached houses on 75 percent of its residentially zoned land; Chicago, 79 percent. First, those detached houses are built to last. Second, “the politics of local zoning almost invariably works to freeze land uses, especially in a neighborhood of detached houses,” he writes. “This is a significant finding, not yet part of urban lore. I chose the title of the book to emphasize it.””

“MCAS is the problem, not the solution” (Letters), Boston Globe, April 11, 2023.

“If over 700 students in a single year were denied a diploma because of MCAS, that probably means many thousands have been deprived of diplomas since MCAS became a graduation requirement in 2003….DESE should publish the total number of students denied diplomas because of MCAS for each year since MCAS became a graduation requirement.”

Joan Vennochi, “When it comes to issues facing the state, it’s Maura ‘in the middle’ Healey,” Boston Globe, April 10, 2023.

“To progressive Democrats, the answer is not enough. Pointing out that Healey’s tax reform proposal is basically the same as Baker’s, Jonathan Cohn, policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, said, “Her instinct has been to give that money back, weakening our state’s ability to deliver on the promise of investment.” On housing and transit, he added, “I think we need to see more from her administration about what their major goals are and how they would track their own success. There isn’t enough communicated urgency about what is needed for the affordability crisis and the crisis of the MBTA.” Cohn also flagged Healey for a “wait-and-see” attitude on zoning changes that are aimed at increasing affordable housing.”

A #FlashbackFriday about Disenfranchisement in MA and What You Can Do Today

Although we often think of the history of voting rights in the US as one of ever-forward motion, Massachusetts stands as an outlier. In the late 1990s, after incarcerated individuals in MCI-Norfolk started organizing for better conditions, Republican Governor Bill Cellucci and the MA Legislature responded with retaliation: a multi-step process of disenfranchisement. In 2000, Massachusetts voters approved a constitutional amendment to prohibit people incarcerated for felonies in state prison from voting in state elections; the subsequent year, Cellucci signed a law to extend this prohibition to federal and municipal elections. Our commonwealth did something rare in recent history: it took away the right to vote from a category of people who were formerly enfranchised.

But the tide is turning. On Wednesday, the Joint Committee on Election Laws took the significant step of giving a favorable report to S.8/H.26, constitutional amendments filed by Sen. Liz Miranda and Adam Gomez and Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven that would ensure that incarceration never leads to a loss of voting rights.

Urge your legislators to support the bill and advocate for its advancement in an upcoming constitutional convention.

And in upcoming events….

Wednesday, May 3: Higher Ed for All Speakout

Celebrate graduates and ensure that debt-free public higher ed is an option for future generations!

The Massachusetts State House will soon be considering the Cherish Act (S.816 / H.1260) and Debt-Free Bill (S.823 / H.1265). Collectively, these bills call for debt-free public higher education, increased student supports, better wages and working conditions, and green/healthy buildings.

Join the Higher Ed for All coalition on the State House steps and share your testimony alongside graduates, students, faculty, librarians, staff, and community from across the commonwealth!

  • 12:00-12:55 PM: Speak Out
  • 12:55 PM: Group Photo
Higher Ed for All

Thursday, May 4: Medicare for All Lobby Day

The Medicare for All Lobby Day will take place on Thursday, May 4, from 10AM to 3PM at the State House. RSVP here to let Mass-Care know you can join!

Action Alert: Protect Fair Share, NO to Tax Cuts for the Rich 📣

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. And that’s not okay.

The House 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. If they are your representatives, you should reach out and thank them. With the exception of a few absent representatives, all others voted yes, and if your representative voted to undermine Fair Share like that, they need to hear about your disappointment. Read more about the vote here.

But the fight isn’t it over.

Here’s how you can act.📣

The tax plans proposed by the Governor and the House include hundreds of millions of dollars in unecessary giveaways to the ultra-rich and large corporations. But the Senate can take a different path.

Call your State Senator TODAY and ask them to:

✅ REJECT the proposed cut to the short-term capital gains tax that would overwhelmingly benefit wealthy investors;
✅REJECT expanding the ‘single sales factor apportionment’ that would give a massive tax break to large, profitable multi-state corporations;
✅TARGET any estate tax reform exclusively to moderate estates, with no tax breaks to large multi-million-dollar estates; AND
✅USE THOSE SAVINGS to invest in affordable housing, childcare, and reliable transportation.

Don’t know your State Senator’s phone number? Find it here, and then save it in your phone for next time.

And then after you make that call, can you follow up with an email?