Samantha J. Gross and Matt Stout, “Months in, Healey is scoring wins with a Democrat-led Legislature in the very places her GOP predecessor failed,” Boston Globe, April 17, 2023.
“The disappointing thing about this is that many people were looking forward to having a Democratic trifecta,” said Jonathan Cohn, policy director of Progressive Massachusetts.“But they weren’t hoping to have a Democratic trifecta get tax breaks for day traders and speculators.”
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. Last year, many representatives were quite clear that they intended for the new revenue from the Fair Share Amendment to be fully additive, rather than backfilling cuts. Even though the House laid out promising and important uses for the constitutionally dedicated funds, voters should wonder how much legislators believe their own pledges given the permanent tax cuts they just passed.
The 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.
Almost half of the cost of their tax proposal comes from the three regressive tax cuts:
Think of all that we could do with $440 million if instead we invested it in our public transit systems, in education, in child care, in climate resilience, in affordable housing, or in health care. Indeed, tackling our housing crisis should be the #1 priority if legislators actually cared about the goals of “affordability” and “competitiveness.” By passing such regressive tax cuts, the House is disrespecting the will of the voters, and they are setting Massachusetts up for brutal cuts when the next recession hits.
Even the less regressive parts of the tax package could go further if invested in robust social programs. The House bill would spend $40 million on an increase in the Renters Deduction from $3,000 to $4,000. However, this in reality, only yields to a tax credit of up to $50 for eligible renters. An extra $50 in the pocket of renters ultimately won’t go very far, given escalating rents and costs in general. As Rep. Mike Connolly pointed out, the state could have used the same money to guarantee all renters access to legal counsel in eviction cases, a measure with far lasting benefits.
The largest part of the tax package is the child and family tax credit, which would amount to $600 per child under 13 or dependent adult and cost $487 million. As I noted before, it is unclear why parents of teenagers should not get the same benefit: any parent of a teenager will tell you how much it costs to feed a teenager. Families with low and middle incomes will certainly benefit from extra money in their pocket, but $600 will not last long given that two weeks of child care costs more than that. The credit thus does little to address the real drivers of the cost of living in Massachusetts, even if it can help around the edges.
A more progressive part of the House’s tax package that was not in the Governor’s proposal was the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which would benefit about 396,000 taxpayers with incomes under $57,000, and would cost $91 million. However, it is important to remember that the EITC was originally a conservative proposal, born of opposition to a strong minimum wage and a robust safety net.
According to Mass Budget, we could make all public colleges and universities in the state tuition-free — or make all community colleges debt-free — for approximately $1 billion. State legislators would demand that such a proposal be funded. So why shouldn’t their tax expenditures have to be funded as well?
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, yesterday, the House, in unveiling their tax package, said that they plan to give money right back to the rich and large corporations.
Almost half of the cost of their tax proposal comes from the three regressive tax cuts:
Think of all that we could do with $440 million if instead we invested it in our public transit systems, in education, in child care, in climate resilience, in affordable housing, or in health care. Indeed, tackling our housing crisis should be the #1 priority if legislators actually cared about the goals of “affordability” and “competitiveness.” Indeed, even the less regressive parts of the tax package could go further if invested in a robust social programs. By proposing such regressive tax cuts, the House is disrespecting the will of the voters, and they are setting Massachusetts up for brutal cuts when the next recession hits.
Disappointed too? Let your state representative know.
You can also let your state representative know (on phone or in person tomorrow) that you want them to support two amendments filed by Rep. Mike Connolly:
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.””
Chris Lisinski, “House adds capital gains, biz cuts to $1.1B tax relief plan,” State House News Service, April 11, 2023.
The proposal drew criticism from some voices on the left. “Our Democratic governor and Democratic Legislature fighting hard for the day traders … ,” tweeted Progressive Massachusetts Political Director Jonathan Cohn.
Mohamad Ali and Anne Margulies, “Here’s How We Define Competitiveness,” CommonWealth, March 11, 2023.
“However, some groups are using the issue of competitiveness as an excuse to rehash arguments against the Fair Share Amendment, which passed by a solid majority of voters last November. Rather than recycling rationales that voters rejected, or lobbying for new tax cuts that would contradict the expressed will of the electorate, it’s now time for state leaders, municipal officials, and business and community leaders to focus on how to invest the funds resulting from this amendment for the betterment of our state.”
Bruce Mohl, “Exodus of wealthy residents called non-existent,” CommonWealth, April 6, 2023.
“Kurt Wise, the senior policy analyst at the Budget and Policy Center, said in the brief that research shows state tax levels have little impact on decisions by high-income households about where to live. Wise suggested it would be smarter to use tax revenues to make investments that would make Massachusetts more affordable for working families rather than cutting taxes to benefit the wealthy.”
Christian Wade, “Healey gets pushback on $750M tax cut plan,” The Eagle-Tribune, March 28, 2023.
“Estates worth more than $3 million – including those worth hundreds of millions of dollars – would receive the biggest tax break: a guaranteed $182,000,” he told the panel. “Massachusetts can reform the estate tax without large giveaways to the ultra-rich.”
Nik DeCosta-Klipa, “What to know about Gov. Healey’s estate tax proposal — and why some Dems are pushing back,” WBUR, March 28, 2023.
“Several Democratic lawmakers argued that the real reason people have moved away is the state’s expensive housing and child care costs — and suggested Healey’s tax plan should double down on those issues. State Sen. Lydia Edwards said that “if we’re going to center equity,” Healey’s proposed tax cuts for renters should be “doubled, if not tripled,” while the estate tax reforms should be pared back. “I’m OK with being an outlier on so many things, because we lead,” Edward said.”
Matt Stout, “Healey is pushing a plan to make calls free in Massachusetts state prisons — with limits,” Boston Globe, March 7, 2023.
“But in reviving the issue, Healey would also set a monthly 1,000-minute cap for free calls per person, making it one of the most restrictive such programs among those adopted across the country. She is also seeking to limit the change to the Department of Correction.”
Ivy Scott, “Proposed amendment to state constitution could give prisoners back their right to vote,” Boston Globe, April 6, 2023.
““Those people are still in our care and our custody,” she said. Before 2000, it was common for elected officials to visit the prisons or jails in their districts, even if just to observe the quality of the facility. But Miranda and Uyterhoeven both said that since inmates lost the right to vote, the presence of elected leaders in correctional houses has been, with few exceptions, sporadic and infrequent.”
Cabell Eames, “Fair Share for the Fossil Fuel Industry,” CommonWealth, March 5, 2023.
“Should the Polluters Pay bill become law, the state will have a sizable downpayment to achieve its climate goals and build resiliency for the Commonwealth. With a democratic stronghold in both the executive and legislative branches and the first-in-the-nation climate chief, Massachusetts is poised to deliver on climate strategies that we can all agree on.”
Brooke Mohr and Dan O’Connell, “Help us address the Cape, Islands housing crisis,” CommonWealth, April 8, 2023.
“The families, healthcare workers, teachers, and public safety officers who came to the State House are demanding the right to adopt a mechanism to raise the kinds of funds commensurate with the problem they face: A transfer fee on high-end real estate transactions. The creation of a transfer fee on real estate transactions of 0.5 percent to 2 percent – with an exemption for lower-cost properties – would create millions of dollars for each community that opts in to creatively address its own specific problems. Adoption of the transfer fee is by local option only – you won’t have the fee if you don’t see a need and choose to pursue it. The details, too, are up to each city or town: How much the fee would be, what would be exempt, how the funds would be used.”
Jeremy Siegel, “Ridership on fare-free MBTA buses more than doubled in program’s first year,” WGBH, March 6, 2023.
“I think what’s so exciting about this is that it doesn’t look all that different. But for the people who are using free buses, it feels very different,” Thompson said. “And what that means is that when it is pouring rain outside, when it’s snowing, you can get on the bus faster; the bus moves faster; there’s more money in your pocket if you’re not making a transfer and that’s your only ride.”
Dharna Noor, “Red states are leading on renewable energy, while Mass. ranks 29th, new analysis shows,” Boston Globe, March 8, 2023.
“Buta separate February analysis of federal data from Yale Climate Connections, which considered not only wind and solar, but also hydropower, found that 16 states now generate at least half their electricity from renewable sources, and Massachusetts is not one of them. South Dakota, another red state, has the largest share of renewable energy at 83 percent, largely as a result of impressive adoption of wind energy.”
Diego Lopez, “Evictions in Boston spike over last year,” WGBH, March 21, 2023.
“The number of evictions filed each week in Boston are up nearly 75% from last year, according to new data released by Princeton University’s Eviction Lab, looking at the four-week average. Advocates and attorneys say eviction rates are coming back up after a lull during the pandemic, saying it’s been a decades-long problem exacerbated by a cost-of-living crisis.”
Tiffany Jenkins (letter), “Lawmakers, be bold and lift the crushing burden of child-care costs,” Boston Globe, April 3, 2023.
“Like many, I’ve had to juggle raising my daughter and working a part-time job while attending school full time and working toward a certificate. Paying for child care on top of that is a burden that forces me to make impossible decisions about paying for other basic needs, from groceries to transportation.”
Ivy Scott, “Proposed amendment to state constitution could give prisoners back their right to vote,” Boston Globe, April 6, 2023.
Jonathan Cohn, policy director of the grassroots political group Progressive Mass, cited multiple studies that indicate a significant percentage of incarcerated people leave prison believing their right to vote is gone forever. Eleven states prevent formerly incarcerated people from voting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Preventing prisoners from voting “disenfranchises more than just those directly affected,” Cohn said.
April 6, 2023
Chair Keenan, Chair Ryan, and Members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws:
My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director at Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic commonwealth.
We urge you to give a favorable report to H.26 and S.8: Proposal for a legislative amendment to the Constitution relative to voting rights.
I would like to begin with a bit of history. Felony disenfranchisement in Massachusetts is a recent phenomenon. Indeed, 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.
In 2022, the Massachusetts Legislature took an important step forward when passing the VOTES Act by including language creating protections for jail-based voting for those who still maintain the right to vote, but we must build on that momentum by ending remaining disenfranchisement, as these bills would.
Felony disenfranchisement compounds the systemic racism of the criminal legal system. Approximately 8,000 residents of the Commonwealth are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, more than 50% of them are Black or Latinx.
Felony disenfranchisement laws disenfranchise more voters than those directly affected. Whenever someone loses the right to vote even temporarily, they are likely to mistakenly think that they have lost it permanently. We must eliminate archaic laws that create voter suppression and voter confusion.
Felony disenfranchisement exacerbates the humanitarian crisis in our prisons and jails. Even Trump’s DOJ pointed out that Massachusetts correctional facilities are engaging in torture, and a lack of political voice puts individuals at risk for abuse.
Moreover, studies have often shown that fostering ties to the outside world is central to reducing recidivism. Civic engagement provides just that, and we should welcome it.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Cohn
This spring, the Massachusetts House and Senate will be voting on their budgets for the next fiscal year, and it’s critical that they make sure to complete and protect last year’s victories when doing so.
What does that mean?
First, that means protecting last year’s win on the ballot for the Fair Share Amendment. Voters were clear about wanting the rich to pay their fair share and for us to invest in our public education and infrastructure. However, Governor Healey’s proposed budget would give away almost as much in tax cuts as is estimated to be raised by Fair Share, undermining the hard work that went into that campaign. In particular, almost $400 million of her tax package consists of regressive tax cuts that will go to speculators and major estates. We need to make sure to protect the revenue we raised so that we can realize the vision of better schools, better roads, and better transit for all.
Second, last summer the MA House and MA Senate both included language from the No Cost Calls bill in their budgets, but a veto from Governor Baker doomed its fate. The Legislature needs to complete the No Cost Calls win by including language to permanently guarantee that neither state nor county prisons or jails will continue the predatory practice of charging incarcerated individuals and their loved ones for phone calls.
The District: Boston (Ward 3 Precincts 7, 16; Ward 4 Precincts 2-5; Ward 7 Precincts 8, 9 ; Ward 8 Precincts 1-4, 6, 6A; Ward 9 Precincts 1-3, 6; Ward 13 Precincts 7A
Outgoing State Representative: Rep. Jon Santiago (D)
The District: Boston (Ward 10 Precinct 9A; Ward 19 Precincts 2, 3, 8; Ward 20 Precincts 1, 2, 4-20); Brookline (Precinct 16)
Outgoing State Representative: Rep. Ed Coppinger (D)