revenue

Take Action: A Budget is a Statement of Values (FY2019 House Budget)

As the saying goes, a budget is a statement of values. The FY2019 budget from the MA House, released last week, makes some modest steps forward, but in others, is just standing still (which, as we all know, is another way of moving backwards). Over the past few years, our Democratic Legislature has too often taken its cues for the budget from our Republican governor rather than from the needs of communities around the state.

In other words, we can do better.

Legislators last week filed a litany of amendments to the budget, and we’ve highlighted the ones we found most important to advancing our progressive agenda for Massachusetts.

Can you email your State Representative TODAY about these amendments?

(Need to look up his/her info? Find it here.)

The Funding Our Communities Need and Deserve

Next week, the MA House has the opportunity to improve the values statement of the FY 2019 budget by building on the recently passed criminal legal system reform, investing in public education, protecting our environment, and building strong communities for all.

Please ask your state representative to support the following amendments related to funding increases:

Building on Criminal Legal System Reform

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
Amendment 243 (Balser), which increases funding for the Massachusetts Legal Services Corporation (MLAC), which provides access to legal information, advice, and representation, for low-income MA residents, from $20m to $22m
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

Investing in our Public Schools

Amendment 156 (Higgins), which would provide much-needed funding for public colleges and universities
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

Protecting Our Environment

Amendment 864 (Walsh, Chris), which increases the funding for the Department of Environmental Protection’s hazardous waste clean-up program by $2m

Building Strong Communities for All

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
Amendment 640 (Ferrante), which increases funding for the Massachusetts Emergency Food Assistance Program by $2m to $20m
Amendment 743 (Peake), which would increase funding for Regional Transportation Agencies from 80m to $88m
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
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 950 (Koczera), which would increase funding for adult education and English classes (essential for new immigrants) by $1.9 million, to $34.5 million

Yes, You Can Enact Policy Through the Budget

The budget, importantly, is not just about appropriating funding. Legislators can also choose to enact policy through the budget. The following amendments would enact policy changes that would strengthen our public education system, treat all residents with dignity and respect, and foster safe, accessible, and sustainable communities:

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 781 (Khan), which would set out punishment for police officers who have sex with individuals in police custody
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
Amendment 924 (Higgins), which would create new consumer protections for student loan borrowers and allow state to crack down on unscrupulous lenders
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
Amendment 1005 (Muratore), which would provide initial funding and regulatory authority for the state to implement decommissioning of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
Amendment 1343 (Decker), which would mandate at least 20 minutes of recess for elementary school students
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

It’s Also Important to Prevent Bad Things

Finally, several amendments have been filed to roll back civil rights and civil liberties protection. Our state legislators need to OPPOSE these.

Amendments 113 (Lombardo), 227 (Diehl), and 347 (Lyons), which would would create even broader authority for police to detain immigrants or punish the 31 cities and towns that have adopted measures to limit police participation in immigration enforcement
Amendment 508 (Jones), which would attempt to pass Governor Baker’s unconstitutional proposal to overturn the Lunn decision via the budget
Amendments 515 (Jones) and 1174 (Markey), which would expand state wiretap powers to “listen in” on a wider range of personal communication
Amendment 979 (Howitt), which would curtail the right to free expression, namely the use of economic boycotts against foreign governments (Think: the boycott movement against apartheid South Africa)

Over to You

The House will start voting on amendments NEXT WEEK, so it’s important to take action soon. Email your State Representative TODAY about these amendments, and give them a follow-up call about the ones most important to you.

[Want to read the text of these amendments by yourself? You can here: https://malegislature.gov/Budget/FY2019/HouseDebate/Amendments]

Boston Globe: Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in budget talks for next year? (Redux)

“Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in budget talks for next year?” — Boston Globe [opinion] (2/16/2018)

YES

Lynne C. Hartley

Chelmsford resident, member of Progressive Massachusetts

I have lived in Massachusetts my whole life. I am so proud of the many “firsts” that we have claimed, such as legalizing gay marriage and providing universal health coverage. So, when I hear that the Legislature will consider no increases to major taxes or fees for the upcoming fiscal year, I just don’t understand it.

As great as our state is, it is in need of many improvements to remain competitive and a place where people want to live and work. We need major infrastructure improvements to our buildings, roads, and highways. We need a complete overhaul of much of the MBTA. Most importantly, we need additional funding for our public schools.

If we cannot increase state revenues, we will never be able to pay for all the improvements we need. Massachusetts will not only be unable to fix what’s broken, but those deficiencies will continually get worse. We have to face the facts that this will require increased revenue.

Our state’s moniker of “Taxachusetts” is a relic of the 1970s. Since then, Massachusetts has reduced taxes by more than all but one other state. That lost revenue isn’t a mere abstraction. We can see it in MBTA service delays, roads and school buildings in disrepair, and a myriad of other results of chronic disinvestment.

I always like to use an analogy to the home budget. What if your car needed extensive work to keep it on the road, and you don’t have the money? Would you not even discuss the possibility of earning more money: working overtime or getting a temporary part-time job?

Currently Massachusetts already runs a deficit for spending vs. tax revenue. According to the PEW Charitable Trusts, our revenue totaled 96 percent of expenses with deficits in 10 out of 15 years, fiscal 2002 to 2016. That gap will continue to increase, putting the fiscal well-being of Massachusetts at risk. Under Governor Charlie Baker’s reserve policies, our bond rating was downgraded in 2017. We cannot afford to continue believing the fairy tale that somehow the money is going to magically appear.

I hope Speaker Robert DeLeo reconsiders his position against considering more taxes because more revenue is necessary to keep Massachusetts the safe, free, and progressive state it is.

revenue

Boston Globe: Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in state budget talks for next year?

“Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in state budget talks for next year?” — Boston Globe [opinion] (2/2/2018)

YES

Ted Steinberg

Needham resident, community organizer, former Congressional aide, member of Progressive Massachusetts

It’s déjà vu on Beacon Hill.

The decades-long hostility towards raising additional revenue strikes again. It was just last fall that the Legislature let stand $210 million of the $320 million Governor Charles Baker vetoed from the fiscal 2018 budget. The slashing of that crucial spending was, unfortunately, a predictable byproduct of the Legislature’s refusal to implement new taxes or fees in fiscal 2017.

Even with those cuts, this year’s state budget is again facing a potential deficit. The government was forced to rely on temporary revenues and the underfunding of essential programs – like MassHealth, services for homeless families, and snow and ice removal – all while hoping there will somehow be an end-of-the-year surplus. No wonder US News and World Report ranks Massachusetts 48th for balancing its budget.

Budgets are supposed to reflect priorities, but instead of thinking big and investing in our future, we are stuck playing catch-up from previous shortages. The Commonwealth has a variety of complex problems requiring investment. Our transit system malfunctions regularly (even when it’s warm outside), schools grapple with overcrowding, affordable housing remains woefully insufficient, and the opioid crisis continues to devastate our communities.

But we also want to do more than put a band-aid on wounds that require surgery. We want to expand MBTA service, strengthen our schools, provide shelter for struggling families, and move towards universal health care. The last thing we need to do is shut the door on sources of much-needed revenue.

As we look to improve upon state services and protect the laws that make Massachusetts feel like home, we should look for creative opportunities to increase spending capabilities. Whether it be from pollutant fees or new corporate taxes, marijuana sales or tax-deductible donations to government institutions, there are innovative ways to generate sufficient revenue for a responsible budget that won’t hurt the people’s pockets. It would be irresponsible not to even consider, let alone refuse to explore new potential sources of revenue or raising existing ones.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo should work on a game plan rather than punt the ball on first down. Tax increases should definitely be on the table as we look to fix our broken budget.

revenue

Fair Share Amendment Makes It to the 2018 Ballot

One of our common refrains has been that we need to start investing in our Commonwealth. Misguided tax cuts and legislative inaction have led to revenue shortfalls that hamstring our efforts to make the long-term investments we need to ensure that everyone in Massachusetts can thrive.

So we were very pleased when the Legislature, in a joint constitutional convention, voted 134-55 to send the Fair Share amendment, or millionaire’s tax, to the 2018 ballot. This surtax on the state’s millionaires and billionaires will raise almost $2 billion per year for public education and transportation.

The vote was mostly the same as it was at last year’s constitutional convention. There was some variation in attendance, but the main change was that Rep. Jim Miceli of Wilmington went from a No to a Yes. Kudos to all of the activists in his district who have been pushing him!

How did your legislators vote?

revenue

Some Budging on the Budget–But Austerity Still Reigns

Last Tuesday, after only two days of debate, the House approved its budget for FY 2018 on a nearly unanimous vote of House 159-1. Republican Jim Lyons of Andover was the sole dissenting vote.

If some of the House’s most conservative Republicans are willing to vote for a budget, you know it’s not particularly ambitious. State House News Service described it as “the latest in a string of austerity budgets,” and they were right. Even though an additional $77 million was added during the amendment process (bringing the budget to $40.8 billion), the budget still entrenches a pattern of underinvestment in public transit, public education, and the vital social services that are the foundation of a thriving and equitable economy.

Budget season in the House tends to follow a particular script. Amendments from progressive representatives proposing new revenue or creative new ideas will be withdrawn, often without floor debate. Amendments from Republicans will be debated on the floor and then “sent to further study,” i.e., tabled indefinitely. And the leadership will decide behind closed doors which line item increases will get into the final budget, bundling them into large, omnibus amendments. Votes, including that on the final budget, will mostly be either party-line or (nearly) unanimous (with occasional splits in the Republican caucus or defections from the likes of Colleen Garry of Dracut or James Dwyer of Weymouth on the Democratic side).

This dynamic was largely on display last week.

Unfortunately, the two revenue amendments from Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville) we had supported were withdrawn–although we commend Rep. Provost along with Reps. Ruth Balser (D-Newton), Tricia Farley-Bouvier (D-Pittsfield), Cory Atkins (D-Concord), and Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge)for speaking on behalf of the income tax freeze amendment on the floor. It is rare to see progressive amendments actually see floor debate.

What happened to the others? On housing, Rep. Paul Donato (D-Medford)’s amendment to increase Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) by $20 million did not make it into the budget. Part of of Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge)’s MRVP amendment made it into the final budget (allowing the use of MRVP funds for a voucher management program), but the more important parts of the amendment (requiring the agency to issue new vouchers sooner in the fiscal year and increasing voucher rent caps to current fair market rent standards) were not.

Rep. Alice Peisch (D-Wellesley)’s amendment to increase the funding for the Early Rate Reserve to $20 million from $15 million made it into the final budget. Rep. Paul Brodeur (D-Melrose) had sought to bring the funding for YouthWorks to $13.5 million; it ended up at $10.75 million instead, counting earmarks.

Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Newton) had advocated for increasing the 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 from $19.5 million. The final House budget included $20 million–better but not good enough. Rep. Mary Keefe (D-Worcester)’s amendment to increase funding for crucial programs to combat recidivism and create opportunities from $250,000 to $2 million did not make it into the final budget at all.

Rep. David Rogers (D-Cambridge)’s amendment had sought to increase the operations budget for DEP from $24.4 million to $30 million. Just $500,000 extra made it into the final budget, hardly sufficient.

Rep. Carole Fiola (D-Fiola)’s amendment had sought to increase the family planning services line item to $5.8 million. It ended up at $5,678,797.

Now on to the Senate, where the fight continues….

budget housing revenue

We’re #1…But Don’t Celebrate Too Fast

Last week, Massachusetts had the honor of placing #1 in the U.S. News & World Report state rankings. The 50-state analysis included more than 60 metrics, and on many of them, Massachusetts shines. We ranked #1 in education, #2 in health care, and #5 in economy. When it comes to education, Massachusetts is the birthplace of US public schools, and when it comes to health care, our 2006 health care reform law created a model for the nation.

But don’t crack open the champagne yet. Although, overall, we outperformed other states, Massachusetts fared abysmally on a number of key metrics.

Although Massachusetts had some of the highest test scores in the country, inequality remains a defining feature of our public school system. We ranked #31 on education equality by race. Quality Counts, which conducts an annual ranking of states on education, found a similar dynamic. Massachusetts ranked #1, but consistently fell near the bottom on any metrics focused on equity. We have great schools, but not everyone gets to go to them.

When our students graduate and go to college, they face high tuition (#41) and are saddled with debt for years after (#39). And the inequality in education is reflected in the resulting inequality in the economy: Massachusetts had one of the highest racial gaps in income (#40) and one of the highest Gini indexes (#45), a measure of the gap between the richest and poorest in the state.

And you can only take advantage of what Massachusetts has to offer if you can afford to live here, which isn’t easy. We were #45 in cost of living and #44 in housing affordability. Expensive housing prices force people to live further from work, leading to long commutes (#47), made worse by low-quality roads (#47).

Inequality and poverty breed crime, a dynamic exacerbated by an overreliance on outdated “tough-on-crime” policies. Massachusetts has some of the country’s most overcrowded prisons (#46) and biggest racial gaps in juvenile incarceration (#46).

So, clearly, something’s the matter with Massachusetts. What can we do about it?

Our 2017-2018 legislative agenda offers some vital steps forward.

Policies like a $15 minimum wage (S.1004/HD.2719) can help reduce inequality. Modernizing the Foundation Budget (S.223) will foster greater equity in education spending. Zoning reform and increased housing production (S.81) can reduce the cost of living in Massachusetts. Making public higher education tuition-free (H.633) or debt-free (S.681) will alleviate the debt burden faced by students at Massachusetts’s many great colleges and universities and make higher education more accessible. The Fair Share amendment, by imposing a progressive income tax and earmarking new revenue for education and infrastructure, can reduce inequality, improve education equity, and make for easier commutes.

Comprehensive sentencing reform that reinvests savings in job training and education (S.791/HD.2714)—or even just eliminating mandatory minimums for non-violent drug crimes (S.819/H.741)—will help reduce prison overpopulation and combat the multi-faceted injustices of the criminal justice system. And eliminating and reducing the fees involved in the criminal justice system (S.777/HD.2929) will make sure that we aren’t incarcerating people for the simple crime of being poor.

That’s a lot of work for the next two years. But if we are the #1 state, we should certainly be able to handle it.

decarceration education revenue

Boston Globe: Should higher taxes be off the table when legislators discuss next year’s state budget? (Redux)

“Should higher taxes be off the table when legislators discuss next year’s state budget?” — Boston Globe [opinion] (1/29/2016)

Ryan Adams

Swampscott resident, Democratic activist, Progressive Massachusetts member

It’s disappointing to hear Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo and other key legislative leaders say no to putting any increased revenue on the table for the upcoming budget. With a deficit that’s upwards of $1 billion, that means cutting into the bone of the middle class, working poor, and vulnerable communities.

Polls suggest a large majority of America supports increasing revenue to pay for important things, like our schools and infrastructure. Even a majority of millionaires have supported increasing their own taxes.

I’ve met the speaker several times and I think he’s a very good man who cares a lot about the state. But given how effective he can be, we must ask him to act boldly.

Massachusetts used to be the state of firsts. We were the first to embrace marriage equality. We were the first to tackle real health care reform. But what have we done lately?

Since DeLeo took the reins, Massachusetts has become a more expensive state to live in, with fewer good jobs for the middle class. Our traffic gets worse every year. While the speaker just came out against it — to his credit — MBTA riders are the only ones asked to pay more, disproportionately affecting the working poor.

To be sure, the Legislature and its leadership didn’t cause these problems, but they could solve them. It’s a tough task, requiring a great deal of political courage – and new revenue – but now is the time.

We have an incredibly intelligent, hardworking populace that leads the world in many categories, but our progress is bottlenecked on Beacon Hill. We need to tackle our transportation needs, the high cost of health care, and the opioid epidemic sweeping the state.

None of these problems can be solved in a day, but a “no new revenue” pledge can only ensure they grow worse.

There are those who don’t think we can afford to solve our problems. They’re wrong, and because of that cynicism, we end up paying far more in the end: for jails instead of schools, or higher car insurance instead of better roads.

Beacon Hill can change that, but it’s going to take leadership, courage and a little more revenue, to go a very long way.

revenue

Boston Globe: Should higher taxes be off the table when legislators discuss next year’s state budget?

“Should higher taxes be off the table when legislators discuss next year’s state budget?” — Boston Globe [opinion] (1/22/2016)

Kevin Loechner

Hull resident, Democratic activist, member of Progressive Massachusetts

House Speaker Robert DeLeo recently declared that the House will propose no new taxes or fees for fiscal 2017. He stated that taxes are “off the table,” a position shared by Governor Charles Baker. This politically driven stance effectively cuts off debate on new sources of revenue to fund state government and strained municipal budgets across the Commonwealth, including this region.

Apparently, this no-new-fees position did not apply to mass transit commuters. MBTA fare increases are coming in July — up to 12 percent on commuter boats, as high as 10 percent on commuter rail. Crunching the data, I calculated that under the maximum fare increase, the last four years will have seen increases of 39 percent to 55.6 percent for train, boat, and bus commuters in the region, not including parking fee increases. And the latest fare increases will not improve service and barely cover the operating deficit.

State aid to local governments has still not recovered to pre-Great Recession levels. For example, Hull’s net state aid in fiscal 2002 was $7.38 million; in fiscal 2016 it was more than 26.6 percent lower, at $5.42 million. Without sufficient local aid, communities have had to seek fee increases or overrides — Weymouth tried and failed this year — or defer capital maintenance, which has been the case in Hull. Constant complaints about increased taxes for diminished services can be found on social media pages across the region.

Opponents of tax increases will talk about waste, fraud, and abuse, or that wealthier people will leave due to increased taxes. But there is not as much waste as conventional wisdom states, and the costs of stopping all fraud and abuse outweighs any savings we would gain. Data also shows that state taxes have little impact on interstate moves. And we have had reforms to state government in recent years, but the resulting financial benefits have fallen short of what is actually needed.

Even those who oppose increased taxes should agree that this is a discussion worth having for maintaining and building a strong Commonwealth. Please consider contacting your legislators and ask them to not take this option off the table in the name of political expediency.

revenue