Letter: “Don’t Cut Care. Close Tax Loopholes for Large Corporations Instead.”

Al Blake, “Letter: Don’t Cut Care. Close Tax Loopholes for Large Corporations Instead,” Berkshire Eagle, July 30, 2025.

Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the Republicans in Congress have made it their mission to cut funding for essential government services on which we all depend. Their priorities are clear. And so should ours in Massachusetts.

Unfortunately, Governor Healey’s proposed budget would halve the number of mental health case workers, limiting access to essential care. Thankfully, she put a pause on her plans to close two of the state’s mental health hospitals, but more funding will be needed

And we know how to raise such funds. It’s not by giving tax cuts to rich people and large corporations as our Legislature did two years ago. It’s by ensuring that large corporations are paying their fair share.

That’s why I strongly support Raise Up Mass’s Corporate Fair Share campaign to ensure that billionaire global corporations like Apple, Google, and Walmart pay their fair share and can’t get away with tax-dodging antics.

Did you know that Massachusetts taxes a smaller share of offshored corporate income than New Hampshire? An Act Combating Offshore Tax Avoidance (H.3110 / S.2033) would fix that, bringing us in line with the federal government and other states and raising hundreds of millions of dollars in new annual revenues.

MA needs to combat offshore tax dodging and make the world’s most profitable mega-corporations pay their fair share in state taxes, instead of cutting public services like healthcare and education that we all rely upon.

Letter: “How MA Must Respond to Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill”

Heather Ford, “LETTER TO THE EDITOR: How MA Must Respond to Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill”,” Westwood Minute, July 31, 2025.

To the Editor:

A month ago, Trump and Congressional Republicans passed the Big Beautiful Bill. But this bill is ugly: containing one of the biggest rollbacks of health care access in US history, cuts to food assistance and public education, and escalated funding for ICE.

Through this bill, the Trump administration wants states like Massachusetts to do their dirty work for them. Bay Staters need to be clear that we won’t.

Massachusetts needs to better protect our essential services from federal cuts. The extreme cuts to health care access, food assistance, education, and other vital programs will hit state budgets hard. Indeed, we are already seeing the impact of the unilateral cuts that Trump made earlier this year.

Rather than making cuts that will fall on the backs of the most vulnerable, we should be making sure that the most profitable corporations in our commonwealth are paying their fair share. That’s why we need to pass the Corporate Fair Share bill (H.3110 / S.2033), which would ensure that large multinational corporations like Amazon and Walmart pay more in taxes using a federal formula called Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI).

Fun Fact: if Massachusetts started charging these corporations fifty percent of their GILTI, it would be the same percentage of their GILTI that Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire already do.

Beacon Hill also needs to tap into the state’s $8 billion rainy day fund. The looming cuts that Bay Staters face under the “Big Beautiful Bill” are why the rainy day fund was created.

Second, Massachusetts needs to better protect our immigrant communities by not being complicit with Trump’s mass deportation agenda. Trump’s $45 billion increase in ICE funds means that the administration will be looking for more people to work as immigration agents. Scaling up means that they will want states to offer existing personnel to do their dirty work. We must be clear that we won’t. Bills like the Safe Communities Act (H.2580 / S.1681) and the Dignity Not Deportations Bill (H.1588 / S.1122) would ensure that our state and local law enforcement are not being deputized as ICE agents.

Our legislators on Beacon Hill speak of doing the best for their constituency. Bay Staters should push for them to pass these three bills to help them do their best and reject the President’s agenda.

Heather T. Ford
Westwood, MA

Thanks to Heather Ford, Westwood resident, for sharing these comments and opinions with Westwood Minute. 

Letter: “It’s Time for Beacon Hill to Lead, Not Linger”

Jason Brown, “It’s Time for Beacon Hill to Lead, Not Linger,” West Roxbury/Roslindale Bulletin, July 30, 2025.


To the Editor:
Seven months into President Trump’s second term, the harm has been swift: rollbacks of civil rights, environmental protections, and safety net programs. ICE raids are tearing families apart, and Congress has aided these efforts. Meanwhile, Massachusetts has been slow to respond. There has been some progress, like immigrant legal defense funding and laws pro-
tecting abortion and gender-affirming care, but we can and must do more.

We need to better protect immigrants. Trump’s $45 billion expansion of ICE means federal agents will pressure states for help. Massachusetts must draw a clear line by passing the Safe Communities Act (H.2580/S.1681) and the Dignity Not Deportations Bill (H.1588/S.1122), which would ensure that local law enforcement is not deputized as ICE agents.

We also need to shield essential services from deep federal cuts to health care, education, and food assistance. Massachusetts can lead with fair and direct revenue policy. The Corporate Fair Share bill (H.3110/S.2033)
would close offshore tax loopholes, ensuring that large multinational corporations like Amazon and Walmart pay their fair share. This would be an overdue fix with meaningful impact.

And let’s not forget our $8 billion rainy day fund. These federal assaults on our communities are precisely the “rainy days” it was designed for.

Massachusetts has the wealth, the tools, and the moral imperative to act. When the Legislature returns from recess, we need them to meet the urgency of the moment—not just with words, but with action. Constituents must demand bold leadership.
Jason Brown
West Roxbury

Letter: “We need to see decarceration, not incarceration”

Norma Wassel, “We need to see decarceration, not incarceration,” Boston Globe, July 10, 2025.

Your July 7 editorial supporting a new women’s prison in Massachusetts lacks important information showing that there is no justification for spending $360 million renovating MCI-Framingham, on top of the annual cost of more than $235,000 per woman (“MCI-Framingham women’s prison needs a modern building”).

The editorial failed to mention that according to the Department of Correction’s own data, the large majority of women there meet DOC criteria for minimum security or prerelease status. Nor did it point out that nearly a quarter of the women incarcerated are awaiting trial or serving short sentences from Middlesex County, which does not have a county jail for women.

While citing a 2022 state-commissioned Ripples Group report, the editorial did not mention that it recommended community residential programs for the majority of women, who present no risk to public safety. No state law requires a prison building, especially for an aging population with complex health needs, and with correctional practices that are often contradictory to treatment.

Even a 2021 Boston Globe editorial stated in its headline, “Elderly prisoners pose little risk, so why won’t the state let some of them free?” It argued for reforms to parole law and a wider use of clemency, but there has been little progress in these areas.

In planning for “an expensive rebuild” of MCI-Framingham, Governor Maura Healey is emulating our current president. The plan needs to be for decarceration, not incarceration.

Norma Wassel

Cambridge

The writer, a licensed independent clinical social worker, works with the Women and Incarceration Project, Center for Women’s Health and Human Rights, at Suffolk University.

Letter: “Fear not, the millionaires tax is bearing fruit”

Jonathan Cohn, “Letter: It’s our high cost of living, not the tax, that’s driving people to leave the state,” Boston Globe, April 28, 2025.

Chris Anderson,president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council, and Jim Stergios, executive director of Pioneer Institute, cite U-Haul data to argue that residents of Massachusetts are fleeing the state’s new Fair Share millionaires tax (“The millionaires tax: A cautionary tale for R.I.,” Opinion, BostonGlobe.com, April 23). But are multimillionaires really the ones renting U-Hauls?

Massachusetts is experiencing outmigration, but it’s not multimillionaires who are fleeing slightly higher taxes. It’s young workers fleeing our high cost of living.

As a millennial, I’ve become accustomed to seeing friends move out of Boston, then out of the state entirely, due to the high cost of living. If you want to buy a home for a decent price or find affordable child care, good luck. We are losing people because affording the high quality of life we tout is getting farther and farther out of reach.

By supporting massive investments in education, from prekindergarten through college, and in transportation infrastructure that will enable new housing production across the state, Fair Share is addressing the real drivers of outmigration. New policies such as free school meals, free buses, and free community college are making the state more affordable for middle-class families.

I hope our neighbors in Rhode Island join us in building an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.

Jonathan Cohn

Policy director

Progressive Mass

Boston

Editorial: “Some hopeful signs, but still a long way to go on legislative transparency”

Jonathan Cohn, Peter Enrich, and Scotia Hille, “Some hopeful signs, but still a long way to go on legislative transparency,” CommonWealth Beacon, March 3, 2025.

ALTHOUGH THE DAYS were dark early in January, the legislative session began with some glimmers of sunlight, as both Senate President Karen Spilka and House Speaker Ron Mariano expressed a commitment to legislative process reform, indicating there would be upcoming proposals about how to make the Legislature more transparent and accountable.

We believe that Massachusetts ought to be a leader in just democratic rule and civic action. However, national rankings place us toward the bottom with regard to public ease of access to information, competitive elections, and financial transparency. Indeed, Massachusetts distinguishes itself by being the only state in the entire country in which all three branches of government hold themselves exempt from public records law. This means that for most residents of Massachusetts, our city councils and town meetings are held to a higher standard of transparency and accountability than our state elected officials.

The remarks from legislative leaders were a sign of growing momentum behind the push for more sunlight on Beacon Hill. When legislators last updated the public records law, in 2016, they created a commission to investigate whether the public records law should apply to them. They ended with no agreement, but more and more advocates have begun to understand that a non-transparent, overly top-down legislative process works against our goals.

……

Letter: The Home Rule Process is Broken

The home rule process is broken

Jonathan Cohn, “Letter: The Home Rule Process is Broken,” Boston Globe, December 13, 2024.

The Senate’s refusal to take up Mayor Michelle Wu’s home rule petition to shift the city’s tax burden is a damning indictment of the home rule process in Massachusetts (“Wu’s defeat could put her on defensive: Tensions high with Senate, business leaders,” Page A1, Dec. 11).

Whenever a Republican Legislature in another state tries to block its liberal capital city from passing its own laws, liberals in Massachusetts are rightly outraged. But our Commonwealth beat those other states by almost half a century, reinforced repeatedly in the years since by Boston’s business class, who rallied behind Proposition 2½ in the early 1980s and against rent control in the early 1990s.

If the petitions from cities and towns to pass their own laws can’t even get a vote at the State House — and this is just one of a few examples from this session, including rejected petitions on real estate transfer fees and rent control — the fundamental mechanisms of democracy are not working.

Jonathan Cohn

Policy director

Progressive Mass

Boston

Op-Ed: A right turn for Democrats is a wrong turn

Jonathan Cohn ad Henry Wrotis, “A right turn for Democrats is a wrong turn,” CommonWealth Beacon, December 1, 2024.

IT’S THAT TIME of year again. And, no, Mariah Carey, we don’t mean Christmas; we mean the annual tradition of conservative- and centrist-leaning Democratic operatives blaming the left for any of the party’s losses. 

The title of Liam Kerr’s recent article, “The politics of subtraction,” is ironic given that his whole premise is that the Democratic Party should subtract from its agenda and abandon constituencies. It is a misdiagnosis that the party would be wise to reject. 

Kerr blames Vice President Kamala Harris’s unfortunate election loss on the progressive positions she took on questionnaires five years ago. Reading his article, one might be surprised to learn that a majority of Americans oppose the expansion of fracking and a majority of Americans support Medicare for All. Progressive policy positions are not something to hide from. Indeed, the progressive policies put forth by the Harris campaign this year were overwhelmingly popular, but many voters didn’t know she was supporting them. 

So what lessons should we learn from the election? Although the full picture will only become clear after the voter file analyses and autopsy reports are completed, we shouldn’t wait to draw some critical lessons. 

This election saw voters abandon the Democratic Party either to former president Donald Trump or simply to the couch. Indeed, in cities like Boston, the decline in Democratic presidential votes far exceeded any increase in votes received by Trump. This speaks to a dissatisfaction, disappointment, and disillusionment that the party must address. 

Although, by various metrics, the economy under Biden has been strong, voters don’t experience the economy through national macroeconomic statistics, but through everyday transactions. Given that grocery prices have gone up significantly over the past few years due to pandemic-related inflation and corporate greed, housing costs continue to grow, and inflation-adjusted wages have not fully recovered from the pandemic, many people feel that they are no better off than they were four years ago (and a societal commitment to forgetting the nightmare of the 2020 pandemic certainly doesn’t help).

Voter dissatisfaction with higher prices has led to the ousting of incumbents across the globe, and the Democratic Party lacked a deep enough well of trust or good will with the electorate to buck that trend. 

As progressive stalwarts like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont have emphasized, that lack of trust or goodwill stems from the party’s history of not delivering on its promises to working people. Democrats were able to accomplish a lot given their narrow congressional majorities in 2021 and 2022. The irony is that it was the opposition from the type of conservative or centrist Democrat that Liam Kerr is promoting that caused the party to narrow its agenda.

Democrats failed to muster sufficient votes to raise the federal minimum wage (which has been flat since 2009), to make an expanded child tax credit permanent, to create a public health insurance option, to lower the eligibility age for Medicare, to enact a national paid leave program, or invest in a universal child care system, even though progressive electeds and advocates fought hard to preserve these aspects of Biden’s 2020 platform. 

As pollsters like Anat Shenker-Osorio have pointed out, many swing voters simply don’t believe Democrats will fight for the things they say they support (so often the case here in Massachusetts), and even worse, they don’t take the Republican Party seriously about what it supports (a well-documented—see here and here—and stress-inducing reality).

When cynicism prevails, Republicans benefit. That, as well as the persistence of prejudices in this country that Republicans can stoke to their advantage, can explain why progressive ballot initiatives can routinely win despite voters electing Republicans. 

Here is what we believe Democrats should take away from 2024: 

Name Whom You’re Fighting Against, Not Just What You’re Fighting For: The Democratic Party too often adopts a villainless politics that presents solutions for problems that it will not diagnose. For voters to trust that you will fight for them, they need to know who you are fighting against. Trump is always clear about whom he is fighting, although this always involves perniciously displacing blame from his corporate backers onto the immigrant community. But Democrats need to be clear as well.

If prescription drug prices are too high, name the drug companies that are profiting from those high prices. If grocery prices are too high, name the companies who are gouging consumers. If wages are too low, name who is keeping them too low. If workers are facing layoffs—we’re looking at you GM—name the incredible profits that corporations are making. The Democratic Party’s desire to raise money from the very industries that it promises to rein in creates a contradiction that will always result in muddled or muted messaging. 

Don’t Cede Anti-Systemic Critique to the Right: In contrast to Kerr’s idea that Democrats lost by too closely embracing the left, Harris frequently highlighted her endorsement from prominent Republicans, touting endorsements from various high-ranking members of past Republican administrations and most notably doing campaign events with former congresswoman Liz Cheney (including one at the birthplace of the Republican Party in Wisconsin).

According to exit polls, such steps failed to secure significant crossover votes, but what they did succeed at is reinforcing Trump’s faux populist persona. Counterposing Trump against the Republican Party helps bolster his attempts to paint himself as against the “elite” or the “establishment.”

The problem with Donald Trump has never been that he is not like other Republicans but that he is just like them, supportive of the same unpopular agenda of tax cuts for the rich, including rollbacks of protections for workers and the environment, and cuts to vital services on which people depend. 

Deliver — and Make Sure to Tout Your Wins Loudly and Clearly: In his piece, Kerr also highlights that Democrats in deep blue states like Massachusetts need to better model good governance. On that point, we would agree, although we find it unclear why he implies that progressives, who by no means control the Massachusetts State House, shoulder the blame. 

Kerr offers little in the way of solutions, but we are happy to do so. If Democrats want to regain the trust of voters they lost and strengthen the loyalty of their base, then they must show how the government can and will work to improve their everyday lives. 

Massachusetts can do that by raising the minimum wage to be a living wage so that no one has to work two jobs to make ends meet; by ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality, free public education from pre-K to college; by investing in our public transportation system so that it is the world-class system we deserve; by investing in innovative approaches to our housing crisis like social housing and allowing communities to stabilize rents; by finally passing Medicare for all (which has been languishing in the Legislature for decades despite repeated majority support in local ballot questions); and by accelerating our transition from fossil fuels toward a green energy economy.

And to show what true, progressive blue-state governance looks like, our Legislature can do all this in a way that is transparent and accountable to the public, as opposed to the closed-door, top-down model of policymaking that so often dominates on Beacon Hill. 

Letter: Mass. leaders needed to do more

Marianne Rutter, “Letter: Mass. leaders needed to do more,” Newburyport News, September 22, 2024.

To the Editor:
I, like many Massachusetts voters, was excited for our state to finally have a Democratic governing trifecta (Governor, Senate, and House) again. However, when seeing the productive legislative sessions in other new Democratic trifectas like Michigan or Minnesota, I can’t help feeling disappointed.

As has become the unfortunate norm on Beacon Hill, the House and Senate ran out the clock after midnight on July 31 with a long list of unfinished business, leaving unaddressed many important priorities like economic development, climate change, and bills to address the Steward crisis, as well as many common-sense bills that never advanced far enough to come up for a vote. Massachusetts citizens shouldn’t need to wait until 2025 until these important issues are addressed.

Our Legislature’s over-centralization of power, inertia, and complacency will require deep cultural change (or the shocks of election losses). Even worse is a trend not commonly on view for the average voter: there has been a striking decline in basic deliberation and accountability in the Legislature, with both chambers taking fewer than half the recorded votes they did just a few sessions ago.

In the near term, the Legislature should do something simple: come back into session and finish their work. The economic development bill has important policy components, such as keeping high school seniors out of adult prisons and strengthening our public health infrastructure (both in the Senate bill), and we shouldn’t have to wait until next year to start all over again. The same for climate legislation: Mother Nature doesn’t wait, and neither should the Legislature. We need robust legislation that centers environmental justice and includes a clear plan to transition away from gas.

Going back into session will mean the Legislature will do what it is supposed to: deliberate, legislate, and vote.

Sincerely,
Marianne Rutter

LETTER: What is wrong with our Legislature?

Lynn Nadeau, “LETTER: What is wrong with our Legislature?,” Marblehead Current, September 8, 2024.

To the editor:

What is wrong with our Massachusetts Legislature? The basic function of a legislature — passing laws — seems too difficult for them. The most recent two-year session has left important bills unpassed. This impacts every issue area that people care about: housing, criminal justice, economic development and climate.

The Legislature has egregiously failed to agree on a climate bill that would combine the omnibus bills passed in each chamber.

Over the last two years, we citizens have learned about proposed bills, attended briefings and hearings, weighed in with our state representatives and senators, and yet still, after two years, we are left right back where we started. The Legislature has failed to come to an agreement on siting and permitting of clean energy projects, on addressing plastic pollution, on plans to accelerate our transition away from gas, and on gas company profiteering by rebuilding remain stuck in limbo or outright dead.

It’s been frustrating for citizens and environmental groups to keep informed and to communicate with Representative Armini and Senator Crighton and then have the bosses in the Legislature fail to bring bills up for a vote. What is wrong with the Massachusetts Legislature? It’s well-paid, well-staffed and full-time. But its productivity and functionality are among the worst in the nation. The Senate president and House speaker control their respective chambers and dole out chairships and other sinecures. In exchange, they insist on vote secrecy, fealty and unanimous votes. The industrial lobbyists must be chortling all the way to the bank. We get to vote on a question on the November ballot to require the auditing of the Legislature by State Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s office. Let’s vote for the Auditor’s Office to find the bloat and dysfunction!

Lynn Nadeau