The Appeal: Why Does MA Still Have 287(g)s?

As Daniel Nichanian of The Appeal wrote, Illinois has banned 287(g) agreements (which deputize state and local law enforcement to ICE), but other states have yet to catch up:

And in Massachusetts, where Democrats enjoy a veto-proof legislative majority, lawmakers have repeatedly ignored or killed the Safe Communities Act, which includes a measure that would ban 287(g) within the state. “As long as the Massachusetts legislature continues to punt, they are being complicit in Trump’s racist deportation agenda,” said Jonathan Cohn, the chairperson of the issues committee at Progressive Massachusetts, a group that advocates for this bill. “Inaction is the result of a legislature and leadership that is unrepresentative of the diversity of the state.”

What Do Raytheon, Staples, and GE Have in Common? They Don’t Pay Enough in Taxes.

The bad news: Train derailments. The certified worst traffic in the country. Underfunded public schools. Tuition hikes at public colleges and universities. A growing statewide affordable housing crisis. Every day, we see new examples of how Massachusetts is in dire need of new revenue.

The good news: This is a problem that we can fix.

The MA legislature has made numerous public commitments to raise new revenue this coming fall. It’s a promise we need to hold them to.

But business groups and corporate lobbyists have been meeting with legislators to push for regressive taxes that take the burden off them and put it on working people.

That’s not right. Because we know that these large corporations are not paying their fair share.

So it’s time to make our values heard by the Legislature.

With our partners around the state in the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition, we’ve launched a quality call campaign, asking activists to call their legislators and make perfectly clear what our expectations for any revenue package are:

  1. Any near-term revenue proposals must include a commitment to move the Fair Share Amendment through the legislative process.
  2. Fair: Economically progressive, to bring the share of income paid by higher-income people more in line with that paid by lower-income people. 
  3. Sustainable: Supported by the public and capable of surviving attempted repeal, so that we can count on the revenue to make necessary investments. 
  4. Adequate: Raises enough revenue to meet the Commonwealth’s needs.

Having technical difficulties and unable to use the tool above? Please email info@raiseupma.org or text 857-242-0412 with the outcomes of your call, including:

  • Which legislator did you call?
  • Did you talk to your legislator or an aide?
  • Did your legislator commit to supporting progressive revenue? 
  • How would your legislator suggest we raise revenue?

Boston Globe: The Stirrings of a Primary?

The Boston Globe‘s Victoria McGrane and James Pindell analyzed the dynamics of a contested Senate primary between Markey and Kennedy within the Massachusetts Democratic Party. PM issues and elections committee chair Jonathan Cohn weighed in:

“A challenger needs to make the case that there’s some issue that hasn’t been addressed and some urgency that’s lacking,” said Jonathan Cohn, chairman of the issues committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a grass-roots advocacy group. If there’s such a case to be made against Markey, he said, “I haven’t heard it.”

Bay State Banner: An Issue-Focused Council Race

JP Progressives’s Ziba Cranmer was quoted in a new article by Yawu Miller in the Bay State Banner about the year’s Boston City Council elections:

JP Progressives’ Cranmer said interest in this year’s races is already ramping up. Between in-person attendance and online views, 300 people watched the group’s at-large candidates forums.

“It’s about at the same level of interest as the DA’s race was last year,” she said.

“It’s Called Insurance Insecurity, and It’s Traumatic”

The following testimony was delivered to the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing on Tuesday, June 11, 2019 in support of H.1194/S.683 

In December 2015, I was diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer that had spread to my lymph nodes. Before I even had a treatment plan, and was in still shock at hearing my diagnosis, I met with the Financial Office to find out what my coinsurance and cap was for my out-of-pocket payments. This insurance-centric reality followed every step of my treatment plan.  

Cancer taught me to live every day and be grateful but it taught me other things as well.  Catastrophically ill patients and those with chronic illnesses often lose their life savings to the current medical system. The wicked good Cadillac health insurance I had from my ex-husband did not cover the whole thing. I was expected to pay 10% as coinsurance. Some plans call for the patient to pay 30% of the costs of their treatment.  For 2019 the capped amount is $7,900 for an individual and $15,800 for a family. This amount is before copays, medications, and many other needed procedures that patients carry the bill for in their treatment. I found out very quickly that people go bankrupt because they get sick. Many lose their house after 4 or 5 years as they can never make up for lost income and what they had to pay into the system.

One of the most baffling parts of the system was extreme administrative redundancies. Each procedure had to be checked and rechecked to make sure it was covered. Mass General, Emerson Hospital, My Primary Care office, testing labs and my pharmacist each contacted my insurance company to make sure I was covered. And while this happening, I kept being told that breast cancer patients statistically have a better outcome if they have a positive attitude. There were times I told them what to do with their positive attitude.  

You see, my positive attitude was hampered by the stress of not knowing what’s going to be paid what isn’t going to be paid. This is because our multi-payer for-profit system puts money and profit over patient outcome. Many patients are told they need an additional medicine, tests, or procedures. Each time that happens, you have to go back into the complicated system and get your approvals all over again. I was denied treatment. I was denied medications. I was denied tests. Each time my team appealed. I barely had the strength to get up in the morning between my rounds of treatment. I was forced to spend those hours hyper-vigilant about what was getting paid for and what wasn’t. It’s what I call Insurance Insecurity, and it is extremely traumatic. 

I believe we can fix this! We can start right here in Massachusetts.

(1) We need a system that focuses on the patient first. The medical professionals and hospitals are stuck on this multi-payer treadmill with their patients. As our current system is for-profit, we do it backwards putting Insurance companies first, and patients last often footing the bill with their employers.  

(2) All insurance claims must have the same forms and approvals so that a doctor’s office is not forced to have multiple administrators dealing with a myriad of health care companies.  One form, one approval, one insurance.

(3) Prescription costs must be lowered and drugs that our Doctors prescribed need to be approved without retroactive refusals. Medicare for all would take care of that. Prescription costs will go down due to our ability to negotiate with drug companies en masse. 

One of the first things I did when my immune system recovered was to volunteer at Open Table food pantry on Main Street in Maynard. Since then, I have become a manager and speak to many of our guests. I quickly realized that medical costs were one of the main factors in why people have food insecurity in Massachusetts.  

Costs keep going up, the system keeps getting more complicated, and patients are left breathless with less beneficial results than in other countries. I’m determined to speak for those in treatment right now. I know there are people lost and lonely who feel they have been left behind by our healthcare system. I often say Cancer changed my life for the better. I am extremely grateful that my diagnosis turned me from a Survivor to fighter, standing up for the next patient.  

Increments won’t do it! We need a bold Leap Forward. Let’s start the health care revolution right here in Massachusetts, the home of the American Revolution.  

Thank you for hearing me on this important issue.

SHNS Reports on the Single Payer Hearing

“Single-payer debate breaks out at public hearing” — Katie Lannan, State House News Service (6/11/2019)

Jonathan Cohn of Progressive Massachusetts, who testified for the Eldridge/Sabadosa bills and against Hogan’s, said a state study isn’t needed to know where the insurance industry stands on single-payer.

“We can Google that,” he said.

Bay State Banner: A District 5 Forum hosted by PWRR

District 5 candidates gather for West Roxbury forum” — Yawu Miller, Bay State Banner (5/30/2019)

In a prelude to what promises to be a hard-fought eight-way race for the District 5 City Council seat, four candidates squared off during a recent forum sponsored by the West Roxbury/Roslindale Progressives group.

The forum, held at the St. John Chrysostom Church in West Roxbury, brought out candidates Ricardo Arroyo, Maria Esdale Farrell, Alkia Powell and Mimi Turchinetz. To participate in the forum, candidates were required to respond to a questionnaire by the organizing group and to have submitted enough signatures to appear on the Sept. 24 preliminary ballot.

We Can’t Keep Shortchanging Our Future

Yesterday, US News & World Report ranked Massachusetts #1 in the country in education. That’s all well and good, but that hides more than it reveals.

That’s because we have one of the most unequal education systems in the country: the children in Lawrence and Brockton are not getting the same quality of education as students in Dover and Weston.

The question is not whether we are doing more than other states but whether we are doing as much as we need to–and as much as our students deserve.

The answer there is a clear no. Four years ago, the Foundation Budget Review Commission found that Massachusetts is shortchanging local aid to public schools by up to $2 billion a year because of outdated calculations of the cost of health care, special education, English Language Learner education, and closing income-based achievement gaps.

The picture isn’t any better when it comes to higher education. Due to misguided tax cuts from almost twenty years ago, we’ve been disinvesting from our public colleges and universities, leading to deeper cuts, higher tuition, and spiraling student debt.

We can do better. And we will demand that our legislators do better.

That’s why we’re proud to join the Fund Our Future coalition today for a rally in support of the PROMISE Act and the CHERISH Act today at 5pm at the State House. There will be actions starting at 1 pm, so if you can make it earlier, even better.

Will we see you there?

Fund Our Future Rally

And If You Can’t Make It…

If you can’t make it in person, then you can still call your legislators in support of the PROMISE Act (S.238/H.586) and the CHERISH Act (S.741/H.1214).

  • The PROMISE Act would fix our outdated school funding formula to more accurately and equitably distribute resources – giving all schools the funding they need to deliver high-quality education.
  • The CHERISH Act would commit the Commonwealth to funding public higher education at 2001 levels, adjusted for inflation.

You can check if your legislators are already co-sponsors of the PROMISE Act here.

But Wait…There’s More…

The Senate is voting on its budget next week. And your senator has the opportunity to support raising new revenue and investing more in our students. 

Let your senator know that you support these amendments:

  • Statutory Charter Tuition Reimbursement (Chang-Diaz, #323): Would invest an additional $90 million in struggling school districts that are losing money due to charter school growth by closing corporate tax loopholes
  • Funding Low-Income Student Undercount (Chang-Diaz, #320): Would add more money for struggling school districts that have been shortchanged due to a flawed methodology for counting the low-income student population
  • Corporate Tax Rate Restoration (Rausch, #53): Would raise the corporate income tax back up to 9.5%, raising $375 million in additional revenue
  • Aircraft Prats (Eldridge, #46): Would close an absurd tax exemption for sales of luxury planes, raising $21 million in additional revenue
  • Single Sales Factor (Eldridge, #37): Would close a corporate tax loophole that lets corporations get away with not paying taxes on property and payroll, raising $143 million in additional revenue

Can we count on you to call your senator?

CommonWealth: Don’t let corporations limit our policy ambitions

PM Issues Committee chairman Jonathan Cohn penned an editorial for CommonWealth on the need for the MA Legislature to be bolder in its policy ambitions, especially around taxes and housing. Read the full piece here and an excerpt below:

LAST SESSION, one of the only significant bills that Massachusetts legislators passed before budget season was sweeping legislation to raise their own pay. By contrast, this year, the Legislature has already passed important bills to lift a retrograde welfare cap and ban the homophobic and abusive practice of conversion therapy.

This could be a sign that the Legislature is interested in being more proactive this session, and that would be a welcome change indeed.

There are plenty of issues that the Legislature can—and should—tackle this session, all of which require bold and comprehensive policy solutions and all of which face the same risk: that the Legislature lets the business lobby set the limits of its ambitions.

MA legislators just voted again to disenfranchise people in prison. And the vote wasn’t even public.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MAY 3, 2019 Joint statement from Act on Mass, Progressive Massachusetts, and the Emancipation Initiative

Mass. legislature rejects voting rights for the incarcerated

As the national discourse around the question of restoring voting rights for those incarcerated heated up, the Massachusetts legislature also quietly took up the issue.  The Joint Committee on Election Laws voted on Thursday April 25th to reject a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights for the incarcerated.

Incarcerated people in Massachusetts weren’t always disenfranchised, and the 1974 Supreme Judicial Court case Evers v. Davoren ruled that citizens incarcerated in Massachusetts must be given equal access to absentee ballots to vote.  It wasn’t until 2001 that Massachusetts disenfranchised those incarcerated for felonies, after the Massachusetts legislature initiated a process to amend the State Constitution to take away their voting rights while in prison. The process required two votes of the legislature before it could advance to a ballot question. A Republican filed the original bill, but Democrats were more than happy to go along with it judging by the overwhelming vote counts in favor: the first vote in 1998 was 155-34, and the second vote in 2000 was 144-45.

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley pointed out that it wasn’t until prisoners at MCI Norfolk started to organize a political action committee in 1997 to organize for better conditions through electoral pressure, that our State government leapt into action to disenfranchise them.  “People who are incarcerated are closest to the problem and therefore closest to the solution. In order to have meaningful criminal justice reform in this state, we must ensure that those most impacted have a seat at the table. Returning the right to vote to people who are incarcerated on felony convictions is that first foundational step,” said Rachel Corey, an organizer with the Emancipation Initiative. 

Certain elected officials have publicly stated they voted against this action, including Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa of Northampton and Senator Jamie Eldridge of Acton.  But no roll call vote for the 17-person committee was available at time of this release. Act On Mass has reached out to every committee member inquiring how they voted and will provide updates as they learn more. 

“The committee doubled down on the legislature’s decision to disenfranchise the incarcerated last week. And we don’t know how our elected officials voted, or even how close the vote was.  Democracy can’t function if voters don’t know how their representatives vote, and advocates can’t even make progress on lobbying the members of the committee if they don’t know who agrees with them and who disagrees with them,” said Matthew Miller, co-founder of Act on Mass, a group that advocates for progressive policies and transparency on Beacon Hill.

The legislature considered a proposal earlier this year to change its rules so that all committee votes are published online, but the proposal did not make it into the joint rules of the legislature.

“We are very disappointed that the Joint Election Laws Committee chose not to take this important step in strengthening our democracy and the hold of mass incarceration on our policymaking. In last year’s criminal justice reform bill, the Legislature expressed an interest in focusing on rehabilitation. Allowing prisoners to participate in elections would strengthen their ties to the community, increase their sense of social responsibility, and facilitate their reintegration upon release,” said Jonathan Cohn, Chair of the Issues Committee at Progressive Massachusetts. “Let’s be clear. Given the inequities in our criminal justice system, this is part and parcel of our country’s shameful history of trying to disenfranchise minority voters.” ########################

Act on Mass has contacted every member of the Joint Committee on Election Laws to ask them to share their vote on this issue. As of this writing, the following legislators have responded:

  • Senator Barry Finegold (voted AGAINST amendment to re-enfranchise the incarcerated)
  • Senator Jamie Eldridge (voted FOR amendment)
  • Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz (voted FOR amendment)
  • Representative Russell Holmes (voted FOR amendment)
  • Representative Lindsay Sábados (voted FOR amendment)
  • Senator Ryan Fattman (voted AGAINST) amendmen

We are awaiting a response from:

  • Senator Brendan Crighton (Lynn)
  • Senator Edward Kennedy (Lowell)
  • Representative John Lawn (Watertown)
  • Representative Bill Driscoll (Milton)
  • Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier (Pittsfield)
  • Representative Alan Silvia (Fall River)
  • Representative Steven Ultrino (Malden)
  • Representative Dan Carey (Easthampton)
  • Representative Kathleen LaNatra (Kingston)
  • Representative Nicholas Boldyga (Southwick)
  • Representative Marc Lombardo (Billerica)