2018 Ballot Questions: Why We’re a YES – YES – YES

Ballot Questions

On November 6, Massachusetts voters will see three questions on their ballot. Progressive Massachusetts recommends YES-YES-YES.

Question 1: Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative

Recommendation: Vote YES.

Yes on 1 2018

What a Yes Would Do: Question 1 would limit the number of patients that can be assigned to each registered nurse in Massachusetts hospitals and certain other health care facilities. The maximum number of patients would vary by type of unit and level of care (see the breakdown here). The enforcement of the measure would be suspended during a public health emergency as declared by the state or nationally.

Have Other States Done This?: California is currently the only state to have implemented fixed nurse-to-patient ratios. Doomsday scenarios have not come to pass, job satisfaction among nurses has gone up, and readmissions have gone down. You can read more here:

Why You Should Vote Yes: In Massachusetts, there is no law and no limit governing the number of patients that can be assigned to a nurse at one time (aside from the Intensive Care Unit). Overworked nurses and understaffed hospitals lead to more complications, readmissions, and errors. Nurses aren’t able to thrive at their work, and patients aren’t able to get the care they deserve. More time with your nurse means better care for you.

Who is Supporting Q1: A wide coalition of labor groups, community groups, and progressive elected officials — See the full list here. The No on Question 1 campaign is being funded by mega-rich hospital executives (read more here). Which side are you on?

Question 2: Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative

Recommendation: Vote YES.

Yes on 2 2018

What a Yes Would Do: Question 2 would create a 15-member citizens commission tasked with proposing amendments to the US Constitution, specifically regarding overturning Citizens United and defining inalienable constitutional rights as belonging to individual living human beings, not artificial entities or collections of human beings. The commission would create reports onpolitical and election spending in Massachusetts; the legal ability of the state government to regulate corporations; and proposals for federal constitutional amendments and actions recommended for advancing the proposed amendments. Read the full text here.

Who Would Sit on the Commission?: Any citizen residing in Massachusetts would be eligible to serve, and the commissioners would be unpaid. The commissioners would be appointed by the Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Speaker of the House, and Senate President (each of whom would appoint 3 members).

When Would It Take Effect?: The measure would take effect on January 1, 2019, and the commission’s first report would be due on December 31, 2019.

Why You Should Vote Yes: On the local, state, and federal level, we see time and time again how the outsize role of money in politics distorts democracy. A Yes on Question 2 would send a powerful statement to elected officials and to other states that Massachusetts voters want to see real action on campaign finance reform.

Who is Suporting Q2: See a list of endorsing individuals and organizations here.

Question 3: Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Veto Referendum

Recommendation: Yes

Yes on 3 2018

What a Yes Would Do: A “yes” vote on Question 3 supports upholding the landmark 2016 bill that that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public places. The law requires access to areas segregated based on gender—such as bathrooms and locker rooms—to be allowed according to an individual’s self-identified gender identity. In short, the law is about the right of trans people to exist in public space.

Why Is This Even on the Ballot?: Reactionaries in this state collected enough signatures to do so because they want to take our state backwards. This is the first time in decades that Massachusetts has had a citizens veto referendum on the ballot. What that means is that when you enter the ballot box, you–the voter–should act as though you are the governor being presented with this bill. A yes is a vote to sign it. A no is a vote to veto it.

Why You Should Vote Yes: Because everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Because every young person deserves a chance to succeed in school and prepare for their future — including young people who are transgender. Because we are better than fear, bigotry, and transphobia. To name a few.

Who is Supporting Q3: Check out the coalition partners here.

How You Can Help: Find volunteer opportunities on the Freedom for All Massachusetts website here.

About Our Process

Progressive Massachusetts has been a part of the Freedom for All Massachusetts coalition since the legislative push the session before last, but before taking a position on Questions 1 and 2, we polled our members–the ultimate decision-makers in our organization. Our members overwhelmingly voted to say Yes  on 1 and Yes on 2 as well.

CommonWealth: House’s Trump working group hasn’t done much

“House’s Trump working group hasn’t done much” — Jonathan Cohn, CommonWealth (7/6/2018)

LAST MARCH, a self-described “deeply worried” Speaker Robert DeLeo created a nine-member working group to guide responses to the “unprecedented actions” of the Trump administration.

The group, led by House Majority Leader Ron Mariano of Quincy and House Speaker Pro Tempore Pat Haddad of Somerset, consisted of Assistant Majority Leader Byron Rushing of Boston, Ways and Means Chair (and then Health Care Financing Chair) Jeffrey Sanchez of Boston, and an assortment of other chairs and vice chairs. Its mandate? Zeroing in on “impacts on economic stability, health care, higher education, and the state’s most vulnerable residents.”

The end of the legislative session is just a few weeks away. Setting aside the catch-all of “economic stability” for now, what has the House been up to on these key areas?

Read the full op-ed here.

Budget 2017: What Does Beacon Hill Value?

A budget is a statement of values. And the recently released House Ways & Means Budget shows that too many on Beacon Hill are content with the status quo of austerity and underinvestment.

Massachusetts lawmakers have fallen prey to the pernicious conservative ideology that taxes–our collective investment in our values and priorities–are always politically toxic. Instead of substantive conversations about how we invest in the infrastructure, services, and institutions that make Massachusetts a great place to live and work, our legislators instead year after year refuse to raise revenue — and leave the people of the Commonwealth begging for revenue crumbs of an ever smaller pie.

Yet, every legislator on Beacon Hill knows that Massachusetts has a revenue problem: when we do not take in enough revenue, we must cut budgets. Because of ill-conceived tax cuts over a decade ago (to the benefit of the wealthiest in MA), Revenue projections continue to fall short, leading to damaging cuts to vital services.

Those tax cuts have cost all of us over $3 billion each year. Each year! Our schools, the MBTA, roads, human services–think of what $3 billion a year could be doing to invest in job growth, education, public health, housing, transportation, and environmental protection.

Next week, when the House begins to vote on the budget, representatives will have the opportunity to take necessary steps to turn this around and to commit to the investments we need to make a Massachusetts that works for all.

Particularly, in the Age of Trump, where hostility to progressive values and policies is pervasive at the federal level, it’s more important than ever to make clear that the status quo is not working. Massachusetts needs to step up its game.

And to get legislators to start stepping up, we’re going to need YOUR help.

Call/email your representative by Monday morning to urge them to support the following ten budget amendments. The sample script is below; more info on each amendment appears after.

SAMPLE SCRIPT

I’m ___ from ___ . I’m calling to urge Rep __ to support budget amendments that support a strong Commonwealth. While these amendments would make a difference in the short term, I also want to urge my rep to fight for MORE REVENUE in the long term, including taxes on the wealthiest in Massachusetts.

Please support:

  • Amendments 42 and 43, which increase badly needed revenue
  • Amendments 780 and 382, which support housing assistance
  • Amendments 1003 and 1172, which invest in children and youth
  • Amendments 822 and 1182, which invest in equitable justice
  • Amendment 1196, which helps protect our environment
  • Amendment 151, which supports women’s health and family planning

Please share my concerns with the Rep. I will be paying attention to how s/he votes on these issues. Thank you.

Budget Amendments

Revenue

Amendment #42 (Rep. Denise Provost): Income Tax Rate Freeze.

This amendment would freeze the personal income tax rate at 2016 levels. From 2012 to 2016, we had four automatic income tax rate cuts, resulting in almost a billion dollar reduction in state revenue. These income tax reductions disproportionately benefit the super-rich, rather than working- and middle-class families: indeed, 20% of the rate reduction tax cuts go to the top 0.05% of Massachusetts residents.

Amendment #43 (Rep. Denise Provost): Educational Opportunity for All.

This amendment would subject any private institution of higher learning that has an endowment fund with aggregate funds in excess of $1 billion to an annual excise of 2.5% of all monies in aggregate in said endowment fund. The fund will be used exclusively for subsidizing the cost of higher education, early education, and child care for lower-income and middle-class residents of the commonwealth.

Affordable Housing

Amendment #780 (Rep. Paul Donato): MRVP funding

This amendment would restore funding for the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program to $120 million from $100 million. This will increase the number of vouchers available, help preserve affordable housing developments, and restore the program to its 1990 funding level.

Amendment #382 (Rep. Mike Connolly): MRVP Improvements

This amendment makes technical changes to the way Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program funds are allocated, making the program more useful to people from a range of incomes in today’s very expensive housing market.

Education & Youth

Amendment #1003 (Rep. Alice Peisch): Early Educators Rate Increase

This amendment would increase the funding for the Early Education Rate Reserve, which increase reimbursement rates for subsidized early education and care providers, to $20 million from $15 million.

Amendment #1172 (Rep. Paul Brodeur): Youthworks

This amendment would increase the funding for the Youthworks program, which provides skills and training to young people through state-funded employment, to $13.5 million.

Legal Assistance & Jobs Not Jails

Amendment #822 (Rep. Ruth Balser): Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation

This amendment would increase funding for the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, which ensures that low-income residents of Massachusetts have access to legal information, advice, and representation, to $21 million.

Amendment #1182 (Rep. Mary Keefe): Job Training For Ex-Prisoners and Court Involved Youth

This amendment would increase funding for crucial programs to combat recidivism and create opportunities from $250,000 to $2 million.

Environmental Protection

Amendment #1196 (Rep. David Rogers): Department of Environmental Protection Administration and Compliance

This amendment would increase the operations budget for DEP from $24.4 million to $30 million. Recent budget cuts have forced staff reductions of 30% at DEP, crippling its ability to protect our to ensure clean air and water and enforce environmental laws. Given looming cuts to the EPA on the national level, we cannot afford such cuts anymore.

Public Health

Amendment #151 (Rep. Carole Fiola): Family Planning

This amendment would fund the family planning services line item at $5.8 million. Family planning funding helps providers offer a wide range of affordable preventative series, including critical screenings for breast, cervical, and other cancers; birth control and STI testing; and treatment for both men and women. With such vital services under the attack on the national level, it’s vital that Massachusetts push forward.

Stop Trump’s Ally in the Corner Office from Slashing Mass. Health Care

While Republicans in DC have been attempting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, many progressives have been wondering what work can be done here in Massachusetts. We have stalwart progressive senators like Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, and a fully Democratic House delegation. And many of you have stepped up to the plate, calling people in other states to urge them to take action.

For now, activists have stalled the ACA repeal bill. But here in Massachusetts, our Republican governor Charlie Baker is pushing the Republicans’ anti-health care agenda.

Late last month, Baker submitted a list of health care proposals he wanted to see rolled into the budget without any public hearing or debate. That budget is being unveiled later this morning and voted on only hours later. Legislators need to hear from us NOW so they know what to look out for.

Baker’s wish list would make his Republican friends in Washington proud:

  • Cutting MassHealth eligibility for adults with incomes between 100% and 133% of the federal poverty level. This would drop 100,000 low-income parents and 40,000 other adults off MassHealth, subjecting them 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. 
  • Removing MassHealth eligibility for individuals if they have access to so-called “affordable” employer-based insurance. These plans can still be considered “affordable” if the premiums are almost 10% of a family’s income. For people living in or near poverty, there’s no premium that’s affordable.
  • Allowing the Office of Health and Human Services to restructure “optional” services. And “optional” includes fundamental aspects of health care, like prescription drugs, dental care, and vision care, among many other things. Charlie Baker shouldn’t have that much unilateral power to undo protections for working families.
  • Imposing a five-year moratorium on insurance mandates. Even though insurance companies often leave out important types of care.
  • Freezing employer contributions to the unemployment insurance trust fund. A $334 million giveaway that depletes an underfunded program—to sweeten a tax on employers whose workers get coverage from MassHealth. With the economy slowing down, this move isn’t just mean—it’s dangerous.

Massachusetts has been a leader in health care reform. And we must continue to lead, by improving upon the Affordable Care Act with a single payer, Medicare for All system.

Today, we must start by not going backwards.

Call your state senator and state representative today. Urge them to reject Governor Baker’s cuts to health care in the 2018 budget, and to support the real solution of Medicare for All.

CommonWealth: Democratic supermajority not so super

“Democratic supermajority not so super” — Jonathan Cohn, CommonWealth (5/27/2017)

IN THE YEAR FOLLOWING a presidential election, the Massachusetts Democratic Party updates its platform. A party platform can stand as a defiant statement of goals and ideals, and a roadmap for a legislative agenda and priorities. In today’s national political climate, such aspirational declarations are especially important as they offer voters something to fight for and something to vote for.

The platform released just last week contains new planks on paid family and medical leave, a $15 minimum wage, automatic voter registration, and the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences, bolstering what was already, by and large, a progressive document.

On Saturday, June 3, delegates from across the state will convene in Worcester to approve the platform, perhaps with a few amendments to make it stronger.

On Monday, June 5, if the past is any guide, our overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature will proceed to completely ignore it.

Read the full article here.

Is Beacon Hill Ready to Stand up to Trump?

If you’re like us, your inbox has been swamped over the past few months with rallies and action alerts about how to fight the reactionary Trump-McConnell-Ryan agenda coming out of Washington.

Copy_of_Big_Decisions_Made_here_(4).png

Massachusetts is in position to be a leader in the resistance against Trump’s agenda–and a beacon of progressive policy for the rest of the country.

Although our Republican governor, Charlie Baker, is not going to stand up to Trump as much as he should, Attorney General Maura Healey has been at the forefront of fighting for civil rights and environmental protection, among other issues, in the Age of Trump.

And Massachusetts has the third largest Democratic supermajorities in the country, with 34 out of 40 senators and 126 out of 160 representatives. In theory, then, whether or not Baker is willing to fight Trump, the Legislature has the votes to do so.

But…

The Legislature, as our scorecards (and brand new scorecard page) show, routinely fails to live up to the ideal of what one might hope for from a Legislature this overwhelmingly blue.

Trump has created a sense of urgency among progressive voters. But, based on statements on policy and priorities, we have yet to see that same urgency from the State House.

A Beacon Hill Committee to Focus on Trump

In late March, Speaker Bob DeLeo appointed nine House Democrats to a working group to guide responses to “unprecedented actions” of the Trump administration.

The group consists of House Majority Leader Ron Mariano (D-Quincy); Speaker Pro Tem Patricia Haddad (D-Somerset); Assistant Majority Leader Byron Rushing (D-South End); House Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets Chair Antonio Cabral (D-New Bedford); House Steering, Policy and Scheduling Chair James Murphy (D-Weymouth); Public Health Chair Kate Hogan (D-Stow); Health Care Financing Chair Jeffrey Sanchez (D-Jamaica Plain); Rules vice chair Marjorie Decker (D-Cambridge), and Export Development vice chair James Arciero (D-Westford).

The working group is tasked with coming up with legislative solutions that are both “necessary and feasible.” The devil, of course, will be in the details….

…whose definitions of “necessary” and “feasible”?

…Will this group aggressively push a progressive agenda, or will they settle for the lethargic status quo?

We plan to follow the working group to the best of our abilities as it moves forward. But what do we know so far?

According to State House News Service, the group will focus on “economic stability, health care, higher education, and the state’s most vulnerable residents.”

Strong, progressive policies on all of these issues have been proposed this session. (We center our Legislative Agenda on many of them!)

Where do the working group members stand on them?

Economic Stability:

Trump, along with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, wants to make an economy that works just for the top 1%. How do we promote shared prosperity by contrast? We could do so by passing a $15 minimum wage and paid family and medical leave, for starters.

Four out of the nine–Cabral, Decker, Hogan, and Rushing–have co-sponsored the Fight for $15 bill. Six–Cabral, Decker, Haddad, Hogan, Murphy, Rushing–have signed on to paid family and medical leave.

Health Care:

Trump wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act, denying health care to millions. The task facing progressives is to improve and expand upon the Affordable Care Act with a single payer/Medicare for All system that truly enshrines health care as a human right.

So far, only two out of the nine–Decker and Rushing–have signed on to such legislation.

Trump and the Republican Congress also have their sights set on taking away women’s rights over their own bodies. Congress has already passed legislation enabling states to defund Planned Parenthood. Progressives shouldn’t stand for that. One of the members of the working group, Rep. Haddad, is a leader sponsor of the ACCESS bill, which would require insurance carriers to provide all contraceptive methods without a copay. Decker, Hogan, Rushing, and Sanchez have joined her in support of this bill.

Higher Education:

Massachusetts has been under-investing in higher education for years, leading to higher tuition costs and spiraling student debt. Trump could make matters worse by reducing funding for higher education institutions and federal student aid, as well as by encouraging the expansion of predatory for-profit institutions.

Only one of the nine–Rep. Decker–has come out in support of making public colleges and universities tuition-free for Massachusetts residents. Rep. Arciero joins her in a strong, but less ambitious, goal of debt-free higher education.

Protecting the State’s Most Vulnerable:

Massachusetts has the opportunity to stand up to the federal deportation machine by passing the Safe Communities Act, which would prohibit the use of state resources for deportation raids and limit local and state police collaboration with federal immigration agents. The TRUST Act, its predecessor, stalled in committee year after year. But the necessity of the bill grows stronger each day.

Four out of the nine working group members are supporters of the Safe Communities Act–Cabral, Decker, Rushing, and Sanchez.

We can look back to last session for insights into the working group. Four out of the nine members of the committee matched the Speaker vote-by-vote on our scorecard of the last session (Arciero, Cabral, Haddad, Hogan). Two of them were more conservative than the Speaker (Mariano, Murphy), and three were more progressive (Decker, Rushing, Sanchez).

The House doesn’t take many roll call votes, but some can be illustrative. Last July, for example, the House voted to make state-issued IDs compliant with the federal REAL ID law per request of Governor Baker (H.4488). Real ID’s strict documentation requirements make getting a state-issued ID more difficult for the young, the elderly, trans individuals, people of color, the poor, and many legal immigrants. H.4488 also forestalled efforts to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, something which–unlike REAL ID–would increase public safety.

Decker, Rushing, and Sanchez sided with Massachusetts’s vulnerable populations. The other six sided with the Governor.

Massachusetts Democrats often talk a good game about opposing Trump.

But will they put their priorities and votes where their mouths are this session?

The Human Toll of Austerity, or What Got Left out of Baker’s State of the State

By Jacques Chouinard

During his State of the State speech last Tuesday, Governor Charlie Baker congratulated himself on his commitment to addressing the opioid epidemic. He also congratulated himself on curtailing public spending in order to reduce the deficit without raising taxes. These priorities, however, are in fundamental conflict.

In December, in an act largely buried by the news around the presidential transition, Governor Baker unilaterally cut $98 million from the state budget, taking the axe to a wide range of programs. Among the agencies hit was the state Bureau of Substance Abuse Assistance (BSAA), which faced cuts of nearly $2 million. This money is neither an abstraction nor a rounding error: this is money that would be used to hire treatment and prevention coordinators, as well as to fund various treatment and community programs that directly combat addiction in local communities.

As a working paramedic, I see the devastating effects of opioid addiction on a daily basis. Opiate overdoses have become some of the most common emergencies we respond to, and many of the patients we treat have overdosed multiple times. While many of these people are successfully resuscitated (usually through the prodigious use of Narcan), an estimated 987 Massachusetts residents died of opioid-related causes the first six months of 2016 alone.

Baker made a step in the right direction last year when he provided $700,000 in Narcan grants to communities around the state. These grants allowed communities to supply Narcan to their first responders, which undoubtedly saved lives. While Narcan grants save lives in the short-term, the only way to effectively combat the opioid epidemic is to provide lasting solutions for addicts and to develop strong prevention programs that are visible to community members. By slashing funding to the BSAA, Baker removed resources intended to provide long-term treatment and rehabilitation to addicts across the state. These resources were also aimed at stemming the epidemic at its source, through the use of school prevention specialists and community outreach programs that can help prevent people resist the pull of opiates altogether.

Such short-termism has been a pervasive problem in state budgeting, as our elected officials fail to make the long-term investments in public health, education, and transportation necessary to guarantee that the Commonwealth for all of its residents. The Fair Share Amendment (“millionaire’s tax”), which will be on the ballot next year (and for which many Progressive Mass members are volunteering), will be a step in the right direction, but there is much more work to do.

By cutting funding to long-term solutions, Baker has shown he has little interest in concrete measures to end the opioid epidemic. People are still dying, and most of them are young. Telling a mother that her child has died from an overdose is one of the hardest things I have had to do. I doubt that Governor Baker can say the same.