The MA Senate Can Pass a Better Budget Than the House

Last week, we highlighted the good, the bad, and the very ugly of the MA House’s budget.

This week, the MA Senate will be voting on its budget. And they have the opportunity to make it better.

The Senate Can Pass Stronger Language on Reproductive Rights

The House passed a slimmed down version of the ROE Act, which — although not as comprehensive as the ROE Act — has been celebrated by reproductive rights advocates as a major step forward.

Sen. Harriette Chandler’s Amendment 180 (ROE Act) offers even stronger protections for reproductive rights.

So far, Senators Jo Comerford, Cindy Creem, Julian Cyr, Jamie Eldridge, Cindy Friedman, and Becca Rausch have signed on.

If one of those senators is yours, thank them. If not, urge your senator to co-sponsor and vote for Amendment 180. (Find their contact info here.)

The Senate Can Pass Emergency Paid Sick Time

If you follow the news, you know we’re in store for a dark winter, as COVID-19 case numbers and death tolls are expected to rise.

Low-wage workers are our first line of defense against COVID-19, but they are feeling the greatest economic impact of the outbreak. Healthcare and long-term care workers, janitorial workers, food service workers, child care workers, municipal workers, adjunct faculty, gig workers, and others on the front lines are critical to supporting our communities during the OVID-19 outbreak.

But many of these front-line workers are struggling economically and lack basic economic protections including adequate paid sick time. No one who is sick should feel like they have to go to work or else they will lose their job. That’s bad for the economy and bad for public health.

Sen. Jason Lewis’s Amendment 360 (Emergency Paid Sick Time) would make sure that all workers have access to at least 10 days of job-protected sick leave during the COVID emergency. 

So far, Senators Jo Comerford, Diana DiZoglio, Paul Feeney, and Michael Moore have signed on.

If one of those senators is yours, thank them. If not, urge your senator to co-sponsor and vote for Amendment 360.

The Good, the Bad, and the Very Ugly of the House Budget

Late last night, the MA House passed a much-delayed budget for FY 2021.

Let’s dive in.

The Good

The House last night voted to pass a slimmed down version of the ROE Act, which — although not as comprehensive as the ROE Act — has been celebrated by reproductive rights advocates as a major step forward.

The amendment, which passed 108 – 49, would do the following:

  • Expand access to abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy in cases of a lethal fetal diagnosis, allowing pregnant people facing serious medical obstacles to their pregnancy to make the decision that’s best for them in consultation with their doctor and receive care here at home.
  • Allow 16 and 17 year olds to make their own decisions about abortion care without having to go before a judge.
  • Streamline access for those under 16 years old by allowing remote hearings, eliminating the need for young people to travel to a courthouse and stand before a judge.

How did your state representative vote? Find out here.

11.12.20 House Vote on ROE

Want to thank them if they were one of the 108 YES votes? You can do so here.

The Bad

If we want to have an equitable recovery from the pandemic and the related recession, we need to invest in our public schools, our public infrastructure, our public health system, and our social safety net in all its forms.

And that requires money.

Unfortunately, the MA House hasn’t gotten the memo. The House budget fails to deliver on the promises made in the Student Opportunity Act last year and shortchanges public services across the state, especially public transit.

Legislators had a chance on Tuesday to push back against these cuts and vote to raise additional revenue.

Unfortunately, the House voted 127 to 30 against doing so.

In a time when the billionaires in our state keep getting richer, these representatives overwhelmingly voted against a common-sense amendment from Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) to tax unearned income (income from non-retirement investments and other forms of asset ownership, such as stocks, bonds, and dividend and interest income) at a higher rate than earned income (income from wages and salaries, as well as pensions, annuities, 401k, IRAs, and other similar retirement accounts). Unearned income goes overwhelmingly to corporate shareholders and other high-income individuals, and a modest increase could generate significant sums of money to fund public services.

Here was the vote.

The Ugly

If you follow the news, you know we’re in store for a dark winter, as COVID-19 case numbers and death tolls are expected to rise.

Low-wage workers are our first line of defense against COVID-19, but they are feeling the greatest economic impact of the outbreak. Healthcare and long-term care workers, janitorial workers, food service workers, child care workers, municipal workers, adjunct faculty, gig workers, and others on the front lines are critical to supporting our communities during the OVID-19 outbreak.

But many of these front-line workers are struggling economically and lack basic economic protections including adequate paid sick time. No one who is sick should feel like they have to go to work or else they will lose their job. That’s bad for the economy and bad for public health.

Unfortunately, even though a super-majority of state representatives signed onto a budget amendment to grant two weeks of job-protected emergency paid sick time, the House punted, choosing to leave workers behind again. Emergency paid sick time didn’t even get a vote or a debate.

Want to tell your representative how you feel? Find their information here.

We plan to keep fighting — for better results in the Senate next week and better results in the session next year.

Your State Rep Probably Took a Bad Vote Yesterday. But They Can Take a Good One Tomorrow.

If we want to have an equitable recovery from the pandemic and the related recession, we need to invest in our public schools, our public infrastructure, our public health system, and our social safety net in all its forms.

And that requires money.

Unfortunately, the MA House hasn’t gotten the memo. The budget that it’s currently debating fails to deliver on the promises made in the Student Opportunity Act last year and shortchanges public services across the state.

Legislators have a choice of whether to invest in an equitable economic recovery or accept a dangerous trajectory that leaves the most vulnerable behind.

Yesterday, 127 state representatives chose the latter, voting against a common-sense amendment from Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) to tax unearned income (income from non-retirement investments and other forms of asset ownership, such as stocks, bonds, and dividend and interest income) at a higher rate than earned income (income from wages and salaries, as well as pensions, annuities, 401k, IRAs, and other similar retirement accounts). Unearned income goes overwhelmingly to corporate shareholders and other high-income individuals, and a modest increase could generate significant sums of money to fund public services.

Here was the vote.

You should let your legislator know what you think of their vote. But there’s an opportunity for them to do better.

Your representative may have voted the wrong way yesterday. But they can still take progressive votes if the following amendments are brought to the floor.

Emergency Paid Sick Time 

Urge your state representative to support Amendment #231 — Emergency Paid Sick Time, which would provide ten additional work-days (80 hours) of job-protected emergency paid sick time for immediate use during the COVID-19 outbreak to workers not covered by federal emergency paid sick time protections.

Strengthening Reproductive Rights

Amendment #759 — Improved Access to Health Care would remove medically unnecessary barriers to abortion care. It doesn’t contain everything from the ROE Act, but it contains many vital provisions and would be a significant step forward. Voters have made clear that reproductive health care matters, and with abortion and other health care under threat from an anti-abortion Supreme Court, it’s time for Massachusetts to act.

Eight Months of Emergency without Emergency Paid Sick Time

Tomorrow marks eight months to the day since Governor Baker issued a state of emergency.

And our Legislature still hasn’t passed emergency paid sick time legislation.

Low-wage workers are our first line of defense against COVID-19, but they are feeling the greatest economic impact of the outbreak. Healthcare and long-term care workers, janitorial workers, food service workers, child care workers, municipal workers, adjunct faculty, gig workers, and others on the front lines are critical to supporting our communities during the OVID-19 outbreak.

But many of these front-line workers are struggling economically and lack basic economic protections including adequate paid sick time.

The MA House has the opportunity THIS WEEK to take action via the budget.

But there’s more. 

The proposed budget by the MA House fails to deliver on the promises made in the Student Opportunity Act last year. Our Governor and our Legislature made a promise to students, teachers, and community members that they would fully fund public schools. In a wealthy state like ours, they can’t punt on this obligation and hide behind manufactured budget constraints.

Legislators have a choice of whether to invest in an equitable economic recovery or accept a dangerous trajectory that leaves the most vulnerable behind.

Can you call or email your legislators in support of these four amendments? Find their contact info here.

  • Amendment #231 (Donato) — Emergency  Paid Sick Time
  • Amendment #524 (Sabadosa) — Increase the Tax Rate on Corporate Profits
  • Amendment #675 (Connolly) —Increase  the Tax Rate that Investors Pay on Unearned Income
  • Amendment #719 (Gouveia) —Tax Profits Shifted Overseas by Increasing the Tax Rate on ‘GILTI’

More about the amendments below

Amendment #231 (Donato) — Emergency Paid Sick Time. Would provide ten additional work-days (80 hours) of job-protected emergency paid sick time for immediate use during the COVID-19 outbreak to workers not covered by federal emergency paid sick time protections. This would allow workers with COVID symptoms to stay home so they can recover and not risk infecting others. As we enter a difficult winter with increasing rates of infection, Emergency Paid Sick Time is urgently needed to limit the spread of COVID19.

Amendment #524 (Sabadosa) — Increase the Tax Rate on Corporate Profits. Would raise the current corporate profits tax rate of 8.0% to the pre-2010 rate of 9.5%, generating $375 to $500 million annually for investments in an equitable recovery. Businesses that are turning a profit should be expected to contribute more to support the public goods on which their profits are based, especially during a public health and state fiscal crisis.  

Amendment #675 (Connolly) — Increase the Tax Rate that Investors Pay on Unearned Income. Would tax unearned income (income from non-retirement investments and other forms of asset ownership, such as stocks, bonds, and dividend and interest income) at a higher rate than earned income (income from wages and salaries, as well as pensions, annuities, 401k, IRAs, and other similar retirement accounts), generating millions annually for investments in an equitable recovery. Unearned income goes overwhelmingly to corporate shareholders and other high-income individuals, who should be expected to contribute more to support the public goods on which we all depend.  

Amendment #719 (Gouveia) — Tax Profits Shifted Overseas by Increasing the Tax Rate on ‘GILTI’. Would adopt a provision of federal law to tax a portion of MA-based corporate profits that are shifted overseas, raising $200 to $400 million annually for investments in an equitable recovery. Many multinational corporations that do business in MA dodge taxes by using complex accounting schemes that make their MA-based profits appear to have been earned in offshore tax havens. A federal provision called ‘GILTI’ identifies this shifted income and allow states to tax a portion of it.

SHNS and MassLive Report on the Revenue Debate

“Revenue a hot topic; not in spending debate” — Chris Lisinski and Michael Norton, State House News Service (4/23/2019)

“The House has once again failed to enact policies that the overwhelming majority of Massachusetts voters support,” Jonathan Cohn, Progressive Massachusetts’s issue committee chair, said in a press release. “When you’re stuck on a disabled train tomorrow or your child’s school announces that it is cutting its art and music programs at the end of this year, the blame for that rests solely with our state legislature.” 

*****************

“Massachusetts House to talk about raising revenue, but not as part of budget debate” — Shira Schoenberg, MassLive (4/22/2019)

Jonathan Cohn, of Progressive Massachusetts, said in a statement, “When you’re stuck on a disabled train tomorrow or your child’s school announces that it is cutting its art and music programs at the end of this year, the blame for that rests solely with our state legislature.”

CommonWealth: How Progressive of a Budget?

 “House Progressives get some action on budget priorities” — Andy Metzger, CommonWealth (4/26/2019)

Jonathan Cohn, who chairs the Issues Committee for Progressive Massachusetts, an outside advocacy group, said he wants the House Progressives to reach higher, and keep pushing for progressive increases in state revenue – which could come in the form of higher taxes.

“We always want the House Progressive Caucus to be bolder than they often are in their asks,” Cohn said. “I think that they’re all good causes to fight for, however a lot of budget asks end up feeling like tinkering since without adding to the size of the budget in a meaningful way it will just be very important but small programmatic increases.” ….

Legislative leaders have said they will begin deliberating about proposals to hike revenues later this session, and Cohn wants the Progressive Caucus to keep up the pressure on that front.

Whose Side Is Your State Rep On?

Massachusetts House votes on its budget, the House will have an opportunity to decide what type of state Massachusetts is.

Are we a state that invests in our future and stands up to the bigotry of the Trump administration, or are we fine with crumbling infrastructure, underfunded schools, and complicity in a racist mass deportation agenda?

Investing in Our Future

While we will continue to fight for the passage of the Fair Share Amendment, or “millionaire’s tax,” our schools, regional transit authorities, and crumbling infrastructure can’t wait until 2023. The legislature can act RIGHT NOW to begin building the fairer tax structure that Massachusetts voters want.

Raising the tax on unearned income, for example, would put us in line with states like Vermont and New Jersey and raise more than $1 billion to invest in our Commonwealth. Approximately 80% of income from stocks, bonds, and similar financial assets goes to the highest-earning 1% of households in Massachusetts, while the bottom 80% of households receive only 3%.

Rep. Mike Connolly’s Budget Amendment #1357 (Long-Term Capital Gains) would provide provide much-needed funding.

Although 97% of capital gains go to the top quintile of earners, the Connolly amendment has an exemption for low income households to ensure they aren’t hurt by the change.

Standing up to the Trump Administration’s Bigotry

Massachusetts has been complicit in Trump’s racist mass deportation agenda. The Department of Correction and four sheriffs’ offices in the state have contracts with ICE to house persons who are in deportation proceedings and to deputize their employees as federal immigration agents. These contracts provide for the state offices to be reimbursed by ICE for the housing, transportation, and other costs they incur, but it has proven very difficult to determine how much reimbursement money ICE has been paying and whether those amounts cover actual expenses.

Rep. Tony Cabral’s Budget Amendment #1250 (Transparency in Spending) would be a check on this shameful collaboration with ICE.


This amendment would require the Department of Correction and the sheriffs’ offices with ICE contracts to provide the
cost, revenue, and reimbursement figures associated with those contracts for the past three fiscal years and for FY 2020.
This past fiscal year, the state has provided nearly $900 million in funding for the Department of Correction and for the sheriffs’ offices with ICE contracts. We deserve to know whether their contracts with ICE are covering the expenses they incur.

Whose Side Is Your State Rep On?

Is your state rep siding with the overwhelming percentage of voters who want to invest more in our schools and our infrastructure, or siding with the top 1%?

Is your state rep standing up for immigrants’ rights, or standing with the likes of Sheriff Hodgkins and Donald Trump?

Give them a call today to find out.

📞📞📞📞📞📞📞📞📞

Happy Tax Day! Your Legislators Have an Opportunity to Make a Fairer Tax Code.

TL;DR: Do you believe in funding our schools, our infrastructure, and all of the services that make our commonwealth strong at the levels we deserve? Of course you do. So please call your state rep in support of Amendment #1357 (Long-Term Capital Gains) to the budget, which would raise the capital gains tax to provide much-needed additional revenue.

Year after year, as legislators craft the latest budget, tough decisions have to be made. A big part of the reason for these tough decisions is that Massachusetts lacks the revenue to fund things, like good schools and reliable transportation, that are most important to our communities. But not having sufficient revenue isn’t inevitable; it’s a choice.

The Fair Share Amendment, which routinely polled at around 80%, was kicked off the 2018 ballot after a lawsuit from well-funded business groups. The Legislature has the opportunity to advance it to the 2022 ballot via a Constitutional Convention next month. But we can’t afford to wait another four years to invest in our Commonwealth.

The legislature can act RIGHT NOW to begin building the fairer tax structure that Massachusetts voters want.

Raising the tax on long-term capital gains from 5.05% to 8.95%, for example, would put us in line with states like Vermont and New Jersey and raise more than $1 billion to invest in our commonwealth.

The highest-income 1 percent of households receive approximately 80 percent of capital gains income in Massachusetts, while the bottom 80 percent of households receive only 3 percent.

Can you call your state representative and ask them to CO-SPONSOR Rep. Mike Connolly’s Budget Amendment #1357 (Long-Term Capital Gains) and STAND for a vote?

Although 97% of capital gains go to the top quintile of earners, the Connolly amendment has an exemption for low income households to ensure they aren’t hurt by the change.

This is a step that you can take right now. But there are other steps to raise progressive revenue to fund our priorities now that deserve your consideration and your vote throughout the session—from placing a surtax on multi-million homes to increasing the corporate minimum tax so that all corporations pay their fair share. And we plan to keep beating that drum throughout the session.

PS: Curious to read more about the graph above? You can here.

Take Action: Call Your Senator in Support of These Key Budget Amendments

The State Senate will be voting on amendments to its FY 2019 budget next week. The budget makes some modest improvements to education and transit funding, but without new revenue sources, it remains in the same paradigm of underinvestment that has dominated for the past decade and a half.

Passing the Fair Share amendment on the ballot this fall will be a first step toward changing that.

But back to the budget…..

If you have only five minutes this week:

Call your state senator, as well as Senate President Harriette Chandler (617-722-1500) and Senate Ways & Means Chairwoman Karen Spilka (617-722-1640), in support of Amendment 1147 (Eldridge): Civil Rights and Safety.

The Legislature has so far punted and stalled when it comes to their responsibility to protect MA’s immigrant families from Trump’s xenophobic mass deportation agenda. The Safe Communities Act, which Progressive Mass and allies around the state have been fighting for over the past year, has remained stuck in committee.

This amendment contains key provisions of the Safe Communities Act:

  1. No Police Inquiries about Immigration Status
  2. Stop Collaborating with ICE
  3. Provide Basic Due Process Protections

Let your senator know that you support taking action now in support of MA’s immigrant families.

And if you have a few more….

The amendment process is an opportunity to further the important causes of…

  • Housing for All
  • Quality Education for All
  • A Clean Environment for All
  • Justice for All

The following amendments will help Massachusetts tackle our affordable housing crisis:

  • Amendment 3 (Creem): Community Preservation Act, which creates a surcharge for documentation at the Registries of Deeds to create a stronger and more stable funding source for the Community Preservation Act
  • Amendment 683 (Eldridge): Alternative Housing Voucher Program, which increases the line item by $2.7m to $7.7m
  • Amendment 686 (Eldridge): Homeless Individuals Assistance, which increases the line item from $46.18 million to $50 million


The following amendments will help Massachusetts deliver on the promise of quality education for all:

  • Amendment 176 (Eldridge): Adult Basic Education, which increases the line item for adult basic education, which is of great importance to new citizens, by $3.5m to $34.5m
  • Amendment 205 & 262 (Jehlen): Fiscal Impact of Charters, which address the important issue of the cost of charter expansion in school districts by ensuring that the state fulfills its obligation to fund charter expansion and to fully analyze charter funding impacts prior to expanding into a community
  • Amendment 260 (Rush): Recess, which would which would mandate at least 20 minutes of recess for elementary school students


The following amendments will help guarantee our constitutional right to a clean environment in Massachusetts:

  • Amendment 936 (Barrett): Minimum Monthly Reliability Contribution, which mitigates the negative impacts of a tax Charlie Baker imposed on MA homeowners who install solar panels on their houses
  • Amendment 968 (Cyr): Environmental Justice, which strengthens the line item for environmental justice coordination by underscoring the importance of public health
  • Amendment 991 (Eldridge): Plastic Bag Reduction, which bans single-use plastic carryout bags

The following amendments will help deliver on the promise of justice for all:

  • Amendment 776 (Barrett): Workforce Training for Ex-Offenders, which increases the line item from $150,000 to $500,000
  • Amendment 992 (Creem): MLAC, which increases the line item from $19 million to $23 million
  • Amendment 997 (Creem): Data Reporting, which adds juvenile and adult reporting requirements, and requires that all the data (the old and the new) be disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, age, etc.
  • Amendment 1015 (Brownsberger): Prison Re-entry, which increases the funding for community based residential re-entry
  • Amendment 1042 (Eldridge): Resolve to Stop the Violence Program, which appropriates $300,000 for a restorative justice program in the Department of Corrections with proven benefits for reducing recidivism
  • Amendment 1125 (Friedman): Criminal Justice and Community Support Trust Fund, which would help boost funding for jail diversion programs for people experiencing behavioral health crises
  • Amendment 1147 (Eldridge): Civil Rights and Safety, which upholds the constitutional rights of immigrant communities and makes sure that local law enforcement isn’t deputized to ICE

Can you call or email your Senator today in support of these amendments?

Why Does Our Democratic Legislature Largely Adopt Our Governor’s Budget?

Last Thursday, the MA House passed its FY2019 budget 150-4. The dissenting votes came from the most conservative quarters of the Republican caucus.

This degree of unanimity seems like the polar opposite of what we see at the national level. Why is that? How do we have such broad bipartisan consensus around the budget year after year?

Let’s turn to the recent analysis of the House Ways & Means budget from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. It begins, “The House Ways and Means (HWM) Committee’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget proposal largely aligns with the Governor’s proposal.”

In other words, this consensus is achieved by Democrats largely agreeing to the Republican governor’s budget. Oh.

Big Picture: Lack of Investment, Lack of Revenue

Where there are differences, they are certainly for the better.

Mimicking his Republican allies in Washington, Baker is still pushing an anti-health care agenda. His budget moved 140,000 low-income adults off MassHealth coverage, which would subject already struggling individuals to higher premiums and a loss of dental coverage and other vital benefits. Massachusetts would have the dubious honor of becoming the only state to repeal the Obama-era Medicaid expansion. The Legislature rejected this push last year, and the House rightfully chose not to include the Governor’s ask in the budget.

Mass Budget also outlines a few modest improvements the House made:

  • Early Education and Care. The HWM budget provides $20.0 million for Center-Based Child Care Rate Increases to improve early education quality by increasing the rates paid by the state to child care providers. That funding should aid in increasing salary, benefits, and professional development for early educators. The HWM Committee also proposes $8.5 million for a new initiative focused on professional development for early educators facilitated by Massachusetts community colleges.
  • K-12 Education. This budget provides $33.5 million more in Chapter 70 Aid (and related reserves) than the Governor proposed. In addition, it funds grant programs at $20.8 million more than the Governor recommended. This includes an added $9.5 million for charter school reimbursements and $8.9 million more for special education costs.
  • Housing. This budget proposal would increase funding for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) to $100.0 million, which is $7.3 million more than FY 2018. MRVP provides housing vouchers to help low-income families, including those living in emergency assistance shelters, secure housing.

Given the crisis in housing affordability in Massachusetts, a $7.3 million bump in funding for housing vouchers doesn’t go very far. Consider this: a minimum wage worker would have to work 80 hours per week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at fair market rent.

The bumps in education spending don’t look that impressive when you dig deeper there either. As you might remember from the Question 2 debate two years ago, in Massachusetts, school funding follows the students, but since so many of the costs of education are fixed (think: the school building itself), the state offers a partial reimbursement to public school districts for lost funding when students leave to go to charter schools. Massachusetts, however, has not been meeting its statutory obligation here. According to the Mass Municipal Association, the shortfall is already $75 million and would grow significantly to between $85 million and $100 million under Baker’s budget. The House budget’s addition is only 10% of what’s needed. Baker’s budget underfunded special education reimbursements by $20 million; the House’s additional $8.9 million is less than half of what’s required.

And how does the House fund these modest improvements? By robbing Peter to pay Paul. Back to Mass Budget:

“Without any significant revenue sources beyond those in the Governor’s budget, the HWM budget funds these differences largely by underfunding various accounts – such as for the removal of snow and ice from state roads – that likely need to be funded eventually. This risks leading to challenges maintaining a balanced budget during the upcoming fiscal year.”

A common refrain from us here at Progressive Massachusetts is that if we want a Commonwealth where everyone can thrive–where we have quality public schools, public schools, health care for all, a clean environment, etc.–then we need more revenue (and more investment in our collective, long-term future). However, our Democratic Legislature, like our Republican Governor, has been hostile to raising revenue. We are an affluent state: third highest in per capita income and sixth highest in median household income. In other words, we aren’t lacking in revenue sources; we’re lacking in political will.

The expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in both the Governor’s budget and the House budget suffers from this same problem: if we are not meaningfully increasing revenue, then the EITC expansion will just be funded by cuts to other programs on which working people depend.

The Amendment Process: What Happened?

A week and a half ago, we drew attention to a list of amendments that would counteract this chronic underinvestment and improve the quality of life in the state by building on the recently passed criminal legal system reform, investing in public education, protecting our environment, and building strong communities for all.

More than 1,000 amendments were filed to the FY2019 budget. And, unfortunately, the House doesn’t make it easy to follow what happened to them all (in case you’re wondering, yes, it is on purpose).

Some amendments are withdrawn before debate begins, usually under pressure from House Leadership

The following amendments we highlighted were withdrawn:

  • Amendment 781 (Khan), which would set out punishment for police officers who have sex with individuals in police custody
  • Amendment 889 (Provost), which freezes the income tax at 5.1 percent. Automatic declines in the state income tax mean billions of dollars of lost revenue each year and less money to fund vital programs across the Commonwealth
  • Amendment 925 (Walsh, Chris), which would allow local governments and regions of the state to, with local government and voter approval, levy taxes to fund transportation initiatives

Now, the House rarely votes on individual amendments. For the sake of time and opacity, House Leadership will gather together thematically similar amendments to produce a “consolidated” amendment. BUT that “consolidated” amendment often doesn’t include many of the requests from the included amendments. The “consolidated” amendments effectively dispense with the amendments in the guise of addressing them. And then they pass almost unanimously, with everything “controversial” having been removed.

Most of the amendments we supported saw just such a fate.

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment A” (Education and Local Aid)

  • Amendment 156 (Higgins), which would provide much-needed funding for public colleges and universities
  • Amendment 246 (Garballey), which would revise our outdated education funding formula along the lines of the the Foundation Budget Review Commission recommendations
  • Amendment 715 (Moran, Mike), which would ensure that immigrant students receive in-state tuition
  • Amendment 924 (Higgins), which would create new consumer protections for student loan borrowers and allow state to crack down on unscrupulous lenders
  • Amendment 950 (Koczera), which would increase funding for adult education and English classes (essential for new immigrants) by $1.9 million, to $34.5 million
  • Amendment 952 (Ultrino) / 977 (Coppinger), which would increase charter school tuition reimbursements for sending public school districts from $90m to $170m so that our public schools have the funding they need
  • Amendment 1343 (Decker), which would mandate at least 20 minutes of recess for elementary school students

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment B” (Energy and Environmental Affairs)

  • Amendment 640 (Ferrante), which increases funding for the Massachusetts Emergency Food Assistance Program by $2m to $20m — Covertly dispensed with via Consolidated Amendment “B”
  • Amendment 864 (Walsh, Chris), which increases the funding for the Department of Environmental Protection’s hazardous waste clean-up program by $2m — Covertly dispensed with via Consolidated Amendment “B”
  • Amendment 906 (Rogers, David), which requires the state to issue a report on measures necessary–including new staffing, monitoring, permitting and other measures–to address water pollution and comply with the federal Clean Water Act — Covertly dispensed with via Consolidated Amendment “B”
  • Amendment 1005 (Muratore), which would provide initial funding and regulatory authority for the state to implement decommissioning of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Covertly dispensed with via Consolidated Amendment “B”

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment E” (Public Safety and Judiciary)

  • Amendment 54 (Livingstone), which would provide funding for the Resolve to Stop the Violence Program, a restorative justice program in the Department of Corrections with proven benefits for reducing recidivism
  • Amendment 219 (Livingstone), which increases funding for community-based re-entry programs from $3 million to $5 million

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment F” (Housing, Mental Health and Disability Services)

  • Amendment 269 (Connolly), which would increase housing voucher rent caps to current fair market rents, get vouchers out faster, set aside a portion for extremely low-income households, and increase funding for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program overall — Consolidated F
  • Amendment 801 (Khan), which increases the funding for Juvenile Court Clinics, which provide mental health evaluation, consultation, and liaison services for children and families in the juvenile court system, from $3.5m to almost $10m

Subsumed and eliminated via “Consolidated Amendment G” (Public Health)

  • Amendment 867 (Garlick), which would boost funding for Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Prevention services by $3.5 million, to $37.6 million, to increase access to culturally and linguistically appropriate crisis intervention and safety planning, legal services, and advocacy — Consolidated G

One amendment did pass (👏👏👏), although the House modified it to begin in FY2020 and did not provide the necessary funding. It’s a victory, but as with most victories, the fight continues.

  • Amendment 1361 (Decker), which would lift the “cap on kids.” The “cap on kids”/”family cap”  denies welfare support to children conceived while the family receives assistance. 8,700 Massachusetts children are currently harmed by this policy that many other states have already repealed.

Funding increases for the Massachusetts Legal Services Corporation (Amendment 243-Balser) and Regional Transit Authorities (Amendment 743-Peake) did make it into the budget via other consolidated amendments, but in much reduced form. MLAC got $750,000 extra, rather than $2 million. And RTAs got $2 million in additional funding, rather than the requested $8 million. The extra money is important, but the Legislature’s refusal to offer robust funding speaks to systemic indifference.

They Don’t Pass The Good Ones. But, Thankfully, They Don’t Pass the Bad Ones Either.

Marc Lombardo’s xenophobic Amendment 113, which would have taken away money from cities that choose not to be accomplices to a mass deportation regime, was withdrawn. Geoff Brad Jones’s Amendment 508, which mirrored Baker’s unconstitutional proposal to overturn the Lunn decision, was subsumed into “Consolidated E” and eliminated. So were Amendments 515 (Jones) and 1174 (Markey), which would have expanded state wiretap powers to “listen in” on a wider range of personal communication

Jim Lyons’s Amendment 347, which sought to create even broader authority for police to detain immigrants along the lines of a bill filed by Governor Baker, failed 10 to 145 (RC 334). One Democrat–Jim Dwyer–joined 9 Republicans in voting for it. Geoff Diehl’s amendment, which was akin to Lombardo’s withdrawn amendment in its assault on cities that choose not to have local law enforcement be deputized to ICE, was sent to further study on a 136 to 19 vote (RC335). The study, of course, will never happen (which is the point). Colleen Garry and Jim Dwyer joined 17 Republicans in voting for it.

Rep. Howitt’s Amendment 979, which would have curtailed the right to free expression, namely the use of economic boycotts against foreign governments (Think: the boycott movement against apartheid South Africa), was subsumed into and eliminated by “Consolidated H” (Constitutional Officers, State Administration, and Transportation).

If you’re still with us: The Senate will be voting on its budget (and its own series of amendments) mid-May. The two bodies will then go to conference and hash out a final budget.