Mass Budget: Why Federal Stimulus Money *Strengthens* the Case for the Fair Share Amendment

FSA voter

Two weeks ago, the Boston Globe published an article casting doubt on the necessity of the Fair Share Amendment: “Massachusetts has nearly $5 billion in unspent federal stimulus dollars to spread to its residents. At least another $8 billion in aid is coming from the US government to help repair roads, bolster public transit, and shore up the state against climate change. The state’s tax receipts are again running well ahead of expectations.” If we have so much money, the Globe article implies, why would we need a ballot initiative to raise taxes on income over $1 million to fund additional investments in education and transportation?

But such framing is short-sighted, and a new report from Mass Budget explains why: short-term federal money is no substitute for long-term investment. In the report’s own words: “One-time federal funds during the pandemic have been crucial in providing immediate relief and helping recover from COVID, but are insufficient to meet the long-terms needs or close the kinds of gaps in access to transportation and education that the Fair Share Amendment (FSA) seeks to address.”

Let’s break down the key parts of this argument:

(1) Federal funds are inadequate to meet the scale of our transportation needs: “Around the state, 1 out of 11 bridges are considered structurally deficient and public transit systems large and small will see big dropoffs in revenue when the short-term federal relief funding runs out. Regional Transit Authorities, such as the Worcester Regional Transit Authority, have been able to use federal funds to improve service and eliminate fares, which particularly helps low-income riders and people of color. But they lack a way to continue these improvements in a few years when federal pandemic funds are depleted.”

(2) We need both the early investments to start new major transportation initiatives and the continuing investments in their long-term operation: “Ramping up major new infrastructure systems and commitments to more frequent and accessible service on existing systems without a backstop of permanent increases in transportation revenues would set up a funding cliff after federal funds run out. Lawmakers on Beacon Hill are understandably hesitant to invest in new commitments that they won’t be able to sustain.”

(3) Pledging our own investments in transportation will enable Massachusetts to better leverage federal money: “Like with the current Green Line extension that was financed through competitive grants in the 2009 federal stimulus package, states must offer partial state matching funds from state revenues. Winning federal grants will also be easier if the Commonwealth demonstrates a commitment to innovation, repair, increasing transit ridership, and improving the transportation networks that would connect to new federally-supported projects.”

(4) Our investments in pre-K and early education lag behind what’s needed for a strong recovery: “In our research earlier this year MassBudget found the cost of a full, universal, high quality and affordable system for early education and care in Massachusetts was projected at $5 billion above the amount of existing funding at that time….Proposed new federal funding in the “Build Back Better” plan will also likely come with state match requirements, making ongoing state revenue from FSA even more important.”

(5) We need a reliable funding source to deliver on the promises of the Student Opportunity Act: “The SOA creates growing commitments to continue to fund state Chapter 70 support for school districts at this higher level permanently….Back in 2019, the complete figure for increasing Chapter 70 funds under the SOA was estimated at $1.5 billion after 7 years.”

(6) We need a vision for world-class, affordable public higher education, not just temporary band-aids: “Current federal relief funding addresses COVID-era harms such as decreased enrollment, disruption to other funding streams like housing and dining that depend on in-person life on campuses, and some staff layoffs. With additional ongoing revenue from FSA, Massachusetts could start heading towards where we want to go: world-class campuses at UMass/state universities/community colleges, well-supported staff and faculty, and affordable opportunities for students to learn without taking on massive debt.”

If you haven’t yet signed a pledge to be a Fair Share voter next year, do so right now at raiseupma.us/pm!

News Roundup — December 8, 2021

“Senate showdown pits family roots against Boston councilor,” CommonWealth

“I’ve been at both ends of the economic spectrum in my life, and that’s a lot of our district,” Edwards said of the First Suffolk and Middlesex District, which reaches from wealthy Beacon Hill to immigrant-rich sections of East Boston and Revere. “And my experience has been in fighting for people on the margins who are always struggling.” 

“Crumbling concrete, leaky ceilings: Twitter watchdogs chronicle disrepair on the MBTA,” Boston Globe

“Nearly every day, MBTA riders come across anything from cracked columns, loose flooring tiles, and leaky ceilings. While the T’s website has options to report problems inside stations, a small army of commuters is increasingly turning to a different medium to air their concerns: Twitter.” Just the latest example of why we need the Fair Share Amendment

“Revealed in dark of night and passed hours later in nearly empty chamber, Mass. House moves $4 billion bill toward governor,” Boston Globe

“The final version of a bill spending billions in federal aid was revealed late Wednesday, long after dark. By Thursday morning, the $4 billion package emerged in a nearly empty chamber of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, where it was approved without an audible “yea” or “nay.” Four minutes later, the session was over.” We deserve a better process than this.

“Charlie Baker’s Empty Suit,” WBUR

“The response to those cascading crises by the man who ran for governor in 2014 touting his executive experience and management skills? Baker “forgot” he had named Bennett Walsh to be superintendent of the Soldiers Home. He “didn’t know” until after the New Hampshire crash about the backlog at the RMV that eventually resulted in the suspension of thousands of drivers’ licenses. He didn’t get around to appointing a new oversight board at the MBTA until October, weeks after he vowed to make it a priority. The botched vaccine rollout was the federal government’s fault for not supplying enough vaccines fast enough. He signed a watered-down police “reform” bill years after the state police scandal broke.”

“Polite, Legal, and Unacknowledged: The Devastating Biases of Well-Heeled Suburbia,” The American Prospect

“This concentrated white affluence in certain Massachusetts suburbs is not just the result of the free market in housing; government zoning deserves a big part of the blame. In the relatively diverse city of Cambridge (median household income of $103,154), for example, the zoning code states that the minimum lot size for multifamily housing is 900 square feet, while 15 miles away, in Weston (median household income of $207,702), the multifamily minimum lot size has been set at 240,000 square feet, some 267 times higher than Cambridge’s.”

“Why You Should Get Off the Sidelines in the Abortion Debate,” WBUR

“Overwhelmed? That’s understandable. This issue is complex and has long been stigmatized. On top of that, there is just so much going on. So many valid causes that need your attention. So many demands of daily life. But the privilege you may have once held to sit out the abortion debate has evaporated. You’re part of an overwhelming majority of abortion rights supporters in America. Abortion access is about to be decimated, and the consequences will hit almost every corner of our society.”

“Boston City Council approves $8 million to make three MBTA bus lines fare-free starting next year,” Boston Globe

“Fare collection is a very inefficient way of generating revenue,” Berger said in an interview. “It slows the bus ride down, it makes it less competitive. … If we’re able to speed up the route by allowing people to enter through all doors, that will allow us to put more service on the road for the same cost.”

“Correction Department cries out for oversight,” Boston Globe (Editorial Board)

“What happens behind prison walls ought not to be shrouded in secrecy or mystery. It’s time to consider a better way — and that better way must include independent oversight of a department that has been a law unto itself for far too long.”

Rooftop Solar Can Help Power Our Climate Future

Rooftop Solar

Monday, December 6, 2021

Chairman Barrett, Chairman Roy, and Members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy,  

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the political director for Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide multi-issue advocacy group focused on fighting for a more equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

Earlier this session, the Legislature helped the Commonwealth take a big leap forward in climate action by passing the Next-Generation Roadmap bill, which codified a roadmap plan for achieving net zero emission by 2050 and set stronger emissions reduction goals (such as requiring statewide emissions reductions of 50% from 1990 levels by 2030). If we are to achieve these goals, then we need to put in place the policies, programs, and practices to make it happen.

Accordingly, we urge you to give a favorable report to the Solar Neighborhoods Act:  An Act establishing solar neighborhoods (H.3278) and An Act increasing solar rooftop energy (S.2165).

Buildings consume more than 50% of the primary energy used annually in Massachusetts. Achieving our climate goals will require making our buildings more efficient in their use of energy and greener in the energy they use. Some of that work will require adaptations and upgrades to existing housing stock, but we should be working to ensure that all future construction is built with our climate goals (as well as the goal of cleaner air) in mind.

The Solar Neighborhoods Act does just that by requiring that all new buildings be built “solar-ready,” i.e., able to accommodate rooftop solar panels and that solar rooftop solar panels are installed on new buildings (including single-family homes, apartment buildings, and commercial buildings) at the time of construction.

Our municipalities are already leading the way. Watertown recently passed an ordinance requiring new commercial and multi-family residential buildings to have rooftop solar. We’ve also seen action in other states, as California in 2018 became the first state to require all new homes to be built with solar panels.

We are all in an all-hands-on-deck moment for climate change. Let’s get to work.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn                                  

Political Director

Progressive Massachusetts

The Safe Communities Act Makes Us All Safer

SCA rally at State House

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Chairman Timilty, Chairman González, and Members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the political director for Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide multi-issue advocacy group focused on fighting for a more equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

Central to our mission and platform is the idea that we all do better when we all do better. When everyone feels safe and welcome in our community, we all benefit. That is why we urge you to give a favorable report to H.2418/S.1579: An Act to protect the civil rights and safety of all Massachusetts residents—the Safe Communities Act.

The holidays are a season when we think about spending time with family. But our immigration system too often focuses on tearing families apart. Across the country and here in Massachusetts (yes, Massachusetts), immigrant families have been separated and detained indefinitely or deported by ICE for any reason or no reason, without due process.

Massachusetts may not be able to stop deportations, but we can stop being complicit. Massachusetts law enforcement officers have, in many cases, voluntarily cooperated with federal immigration enforcement efforts—at Massachusetts taxpayer expense. If immigrants fear that interacting with state officials could get them or family members deported, they will cease to report crimes or emergencies. When immigrants fear state officials, we are all less safe.

Moreover, when local law enforcement is involved with enforcing immigration law, racial profiling is likely. This harms not only the undocumented, but all people of color, who become potential targets for arrest, because they might “look” undocumented.

Lastly, Massachusetts law enforcement is not being paid to act as ICE agents. Cooperating with federal immigration orders costs the Commonwealth money, both from the extra duties and expensive lawsuits over violation of due process.

All of this makes a simple fact clear: the status quo is not keeping people safe. The Safe Communities Act, by contrast, would—by preventing police from inquiring about immigration status, guaranteeing due process rights, limiting notifications to ICE, and ending collaboration agreements that enable state and county officials with ICE.

Although the new administration in Washington has fortunately shown interest in reforming our immigration system, we don’t need to wait to act, especially when we should have acted years ago.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn                                  

Political Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Safe Communities Act Hearing Prep – Dec 2021

SCA rally at State House

Bill Numbers: S.1579 / H.2418

Full title: An Act to protect the civil rights and safety of all Massachusetts residents

Lead sponsors: Sen. Jamie Eldrige, Rep. Ruth Balser & Rep. Liz Miranda

Committee: Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security

Hearing Information

The hearing will be Wednesday, December 1, at 11 am.

Sign up for the SCA Coalition’s hearing watch party here.

Submit Testimony Yourself

You can submit testimony using the link here!

The Issue 

Federal immigration enforcement practices have created a climate of fear in the Commonwealth. Across the country and here in Massachusetts (yes, Massachusetts), immigrant families have been separated and detained indefinitely or deported by ICE for any reason or no reason, without due process. This is happening despite the fact that most non-citizens in Massachusetts have lived here for more than 10 years and are deeply rooted in family and community here. More than 90% of deportation cases initiated in Massachusetts during the 2021 fiscal year (as of February) were against people who were charged solely with immigration violations, not crimes. 

Massachusetts may not be able to stop deportations, but we can stop being complicit. Massachusetts law enforcement officers have, in many cases, voluntarily cooperated with federal immigration enforcement efforts–at Massachusetts taxpayer expense. If immigrants fear that interacting with state officials could get them or family members deported, they will cease to report crimes or emergencies. When immigrants fear state officials, we are all less safe.

Although the new administration in Washington has shown interest in reforming our immigration system, we don’t need to wait to act, especially when we should have acted years ago. 

The Solution

The Safe Communities Act guarantees basic rights and ensures that state and local law enforcement aren’t deputized as federal immigration agents. It bars local law enforcement from asking about immigration status (codifying a practice already common across the state), ensures that undocumented immigrants are granted due process rights, and prevents ICE from disrupting fair access to the judicial process for both victims and defendants. Moreover, the bill ends 287(g) agreements, which deputize state and local law enforcement to ICE at taxpayer expense. 

These reforms reflect a genuine vision of public safety: when communities are ripped apart, we are all less safe, and when communities are whole and everyone has access to justice, we are all safer. 

Highlights 

  • Bars law enforcement from asking about immigration status (unless required by law): Many immigrants fear that calling 911 or speaking to police will lead to separation from family members. This makes them more vulnerable to domestic abuse, wage theft, and other crimes. 
  • Protects due process rights: Before ICE questions someone in local custody, police would have to obtain their consent and explain they have the right to decline an interview or have their own attorney present (rights commonly known as “Miranda” rights). Non-citizens are often unaware of these rights, but without such protections, they can unintentionally make statements that or sign documents that put their own cases in jeopardy. 
  • Ensure fair access to courts: Current practices enable and encourage ICE to take custody of people before they have their day in court, denying justice to victims and defendants alike. The SCA allows police and court officials to notify ICE of a person’s pending release from custody only at the end of a sentence, not before. 
  • Bans 287(g) agreements: These contracts, which allow state and county personnel to act as federal immigration agents at state taxpayers’ expense, are the most extreme form of entanglement with ICE. Massachusetts is the only state in New England to have such agreements, and we have four: with Bristol, Barnstable and Plymouth counties, and the Department of Corrections.
  • Requires law enforcement training: The bill also requires that law enforcement agencies incorporate this guidance into their training programs, and permits the filing of complaints with the relevant agencies.

Email / Call Script (provided by the SCA Coalition) 

Find your legislators’ contact information here. Or send it directly here.

I urge you to cosponsor the Safe Communities Act (S.1579/H.2418). As we celebrate the federal government’s renewed appreciation for the contributions of immigrants, we must also end our state’s longstanding involvement in deportations by supporting this critical legislation, which was reported out favorably last year by the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.

The COVID-19 crisis has underscored the detrimental impacts of this involvement—undermining testing, treatment and contact tracing efforts in immigrant communities, and impeding immigrant access to court and police protection.

In the interest of public health, public safety, and an equitable recovery that includes all state residents, I hope I can count on your support for this bill.

Talking Points / Sample Tweets 

  • We believe ALL immigrants are welcome in our community. The #SafeCommunitiesAct would be a step toward delivering on that promise. #mapoli 
  • The #SafeCommunitiesAct is about safety: when communities are ripped apart, we are all less safe, and when communities are whole and everyone has access to justice, we are all safer. #mapoli 
  • Deputizing state and local law enforcement to ICE makes us all less safe, leading to families being ripped apart and increasing racial profiling. #SafeCommunitiesAct #mapoli 
  • Deportations disrupt the economy by depleting the workforce and pushing the undocumented into the underground economy. We all benefit from the #SafeCommunitiesAct. #mapoli 
  • The #SafeCommunitiesAct makes sure that we aren’t spending public money in ways that make the public less safe. That’s basic fiscal responsibility. #mapoli 
  • We can’t wait for the federal government to take action to protect immigrants’ rights. It’s time to pass the #SafeCommunitiesAct. #mapoli 
  • A new White House doesn’t mean the fight for immigrants’ rights is over. The #SafeCommunitiesAct is just as important than ever. Let’s get it done. #mapoli 
  • If we want a successful and equitable recovery from COVID-19, we must pass the #SafeCommunitiesAct. #mapoli 

Learn More 

Finish the Work of Last Year’s Police Reform Bill by Banning Facial Surveillance

Facial surveillance

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

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

I am submitting testimony today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We are appreciative of the work that the Legislature did last session in passing police accountability legislation that created better standards for police professionalization as well as stronger limitations on the use of force. But there is more work to be done. In that light, we urge you to give a favorable report to H.135/S.47: An Act to Regulate Face Surveillance.

Last year, the House and Senate adopted a strong framework for government use of face surveillance in the Commonwealth, but the legislation was significantly weakened by Governor Baker before ultimate passage. H.135 and S.47 are nearly identical to the original language passed by the House and Senate. They would allow controlled use of this technology for legitimate police investigations while strengthening protections for our privacy, freedom of speech, racial justice, and civil rights.

From last year’s debate, I expect that you are familiar with the myriad problems posed by facial surveillance, with regard to both use (e.g., its track record of inaccuracy, especially in distinguishing between Black and Brown individuals—and the dangers that poses) and its susceptibility to abuse (e.g., the ease with which officers could take advantage of data for personal reasons having no relation to public safety).  

The current regulations on facial surveillance are deficient in several key ways:

  1. They only regulate facial recognition technology as used by law enforcement agencies, neither prohibiting nor regulating when this technology can or cannot be used by public agencies of different nature, for example schools or local parks departments.
  • They do not establish any limitation regarding who can directly use and operate a facial recognition system and impose very weak standards governing police requests, court orders, and the use of the technology in criminal investigations.
  • They fail to provide any due process protections for defendants who have been subject to the use of facial recognition systems.
  • They lack any enforcement mechanism to ensure that public officials comply with the law.

Thankfully, H.135 and S.47provide for useful policy solutions to these problems. They would, among other steps, prohibit all public entities, including public schools, the department of transportation, and other public agencies in the Commonwealth, from using and possessing this technology; create a notice-and-disclosure framework that will let persons know when facial recognition was used to identify them; and establish an exclusionary rule that would apply when law enforcement uses facial recognition in a manner that does not conform with the law.

We encourage you to give a favorable report to H.135 and S.47. We need strong regulations to ensure it doesn’t infringe on our civil rights and civil liberties, and this legislation provides an excellent model.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

Lifting up MA’s Families with the Common Start Bill

Common Start MA logo

Today, the Joint Committee on Education held its hearing on the Common Start bill. Read our testimony below — and find out how to take action at progressivemass.com/common-start-2021.

Testimony of Progressive Massachusetts in support of H.605 and S.2362: 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

October 23, 2021

Chairman Lewis, Chairwoman Peisch, and Members of the Joint Committee on Education:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Massachusetts. We are urging you to give a favorable report to H.605 and S.362: 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, jointly known as the Common Start bill.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the weakness of our child care infrastructure, but families were already struggling before. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Massachusetts has the most expensive infant care in the country, after the District of Columbia, with the annual cost for infant care or child care of a four-year-old higher than that of college tuition. [1] The $20,913 average annual cost of child care and $15,095 average annual cost for care for a four-year-old is more than half what a minimum wage worker would earn in a year. 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.

The Common Start bill will lift up Massachusetts families by providing child care and early education that is affordable for everyone.  It is most essential to lower-income families, but it will also aid middle-income families who must cope with the highest cost child care in the nation.  We need the quarter million workers who have left the workforce to return to their jobs so they can have income stability and we need them employed for our economy to prosper.

Investments in child care and early education are not only good for the economic security of parents: they are also highly beneficial for children. 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.

With resources coming in from the federal government through the American Recovery Plan, we have an opportunity to build a child care and early education infrastructure worthy of our Commonwealth. We urge you to take it and to pass the Common Start legislation.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

[1] https://www.epi.org/child-care-costs-in-the-united-states/#/MA

MA Legislature Approves New Congressional District Lines. Here’s How They Changed.

This Wednesday, the MA House and Senate passed new district lines for Massachusetts’s 9 Congressional districts.

After every decennial US census, states have to redraw the lines for their legislative and Congressional districts. Massachusetts, fortunately, did not lose any Congressional districts, but population shifts meant that some districts — like the 1st Congressional (Richard Neal) and 2nd Congressional (Jim McGovern) — would need to gain more territory and others — like the 7th Congressional (Ayanna Pressley) and 8th Congressional (Stephen Lynch) — would need to lose territory.

The main point of contention with the Congressional maps concerned Fall River and New Bedford. The Drawing Democracy Coalition, which consists of community groups and civil rights advocates from across the Commonwealth (we’re a member), had been advocating for keeping Fall River whole and uniting it with New Bedford in the 9th Congressional district (Bill Keating) given that Fall River and New Bedford share many concerns as gateway cities with large immigrant populations. Moreover, as coastal cities, they share a clear interest with the Cape communities in the 9th.

The Legislature’s map unites Fall River, but does so by putting all of it in the 4th Congressional district (Jake Auchincloss), a strangely designed district that extends from Brookline and Newton down to Fall River.

The House passed the new map 151 to 8. The 8 dissenting votes came from Democrats Christopher Markey (D-Dartmouth) and Alan Silvia (D-Fall River), who heeded the objections from South Coast advocates, and Republicans Donald Berthiaume (R-Spencer), Peter Durant (R-Spencer), Paul Frost (R-Auburn), Joseph McKenna (R-Webster), Lenny Mirra (R-West Newbury), and David Vieira (R-Falmouth). Frost had put forth an amendment about keeping all of Oxford and Webster in the 2nd Congressional district as opposed to moving them to the 1st Congressional, as the new map does, and it’s likely that he and the other Central Mass dissenters voted against the map because of that amendment’s failure.

The debate was far more contentious in the Senate. State Senator Becca Rausch (D-Needham) criticized the map for its scrambling of the lines in MetroWest (“I live in and have the honor of representing parts of Metrowest and this map would slash Metrowest into bits and pieces, divided into five different congressional districts…The Metrowest region has the highest concentration of Brazilian immigrants in the United States.) and separation of Fall River and New Bedford (“We should not divide the two anchor communities of the South Coast. Indeed all of the equity-focused and strong democracy advocates and the strong majority of people who live in Fall River who testified before the committee asked for Fall River and New Bedford to be untied in the ninth district.”) State Senator Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) echoed such criticism (“It continues to send the message to Southeastern Massachusetts that we in the metropolitan area of Boston, we will continue to do what we want with you and we will use you when we need to but otherwise we will just continue to do what we want when we want to.”)

The vote was much closer in the Senate, with the map only passing 26 to 13, with most of the opposition coming from either stalwart progressives or Southeastern senators.

See all the changes to the map here:

PM in the News: “Massachusetts Legislature Ranks Most Liberal Nationwide, Conservative Groups Say”

Hannah Green, “Massachusetts Legislature Ranks Most Liberal Nationwide, Conservative Groups Say,” WGBH News, October 28, 2021.

Others say Massachusetts lawmakers aren’t liberal enough. Jonathan Cohn, chair of the issues committee at Progressive Massachusetts, disagreed with the ranking. The Commonwealth has a high number of Democratic legislators, he said, but the legislation they pass isn’t as progressive when compared to states like California or New York. He believes Massachusetts is behind on key progressive legislation, like same-day voter registration and allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

“My initial thought on Massachusetts being ranked as the most liberal in the country is — I wish,” Cohn said.

Medicare for All: Treating Health Care as a Human Right

Public health image

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Chairwoman Friedman, Chairman Lawn, and members of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing:

Thank you for holding this hearing today. My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization devoted to shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and environmental protection and sustainable infrastructure.

Progressive Massachusetts urges a favorable report for S.766/H.1267: An Act establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has a storied role in the history of the fight for universal health care in the US. Our former senator Ted Kennedy was a longtime champion of single payer, and our 2006 health care reform law was a model for the Affordable Care Act nationally.

Although our health care reform law, boosted by the ACA, has helped Massachusetts achieve near-full universality in health insurance coverage, we still see underinsurance, high premiums, high rates of medical debt, and significant disparities—all inevitable outcomes of a reliance on private sector provision. Universal coverage alone doesn’t guarantee affordability, quality, or equity without additional steps.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the flaws of our current system clear. As we recognize the central public health message that our health is intertwined, we must build that recognition into health care delivery and ensure everyone can access the best-quality care possible. When anyone is too afraid of medical bills or debt to seek the care they need, we are all worse off.

The US remains the only advanced industrial country that has not recognized this as a fundamental right, but Massachusetts can lead the way. A single payer system would save the Commonwealth money through increased efficiency; take the burden of rising health care costs off small businesses, municipalities, and families; eliminate medical debt and medical bankruptcy; and finally guarantee access to quality, affordable health care as a right for all residents of the Commonwealth.

We often hear rhetoric around “choice” in our health care system. And indeed, there are plenty of places where “choice” is important, where it provides a valuable outlet for self-expression. Health insurance is not that. “Choice” in health insurance only means “you get as much as you can afford, and no more.”

The way we design our health care system has a significant impact on the lives of all residents of the Commonwealth, and putting equity and justice at the center of such a design is vital to ensuring that every person is able to live up to their full potential.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts