Campaign for Our Communities
ARCHIVE: CAMPAIGN FOR OUR COMMUNITIES (Progressive Revenue Reform, 2012-2013)
- Campaign updates
- Goals
- Gov. Patrick's Revenue Proposal
- An Act to Invest in Our Communities
- Changes in Tax Share under Governor's Proposal
- Changes in Tax Share under Act to Invest in Our Communities
- Legislation
- Compare Governor's Plan and Act to Invest
- Background: Why do we need more revenue?
- Take Action
- Toolkit
UPDATE 4/9/2013: On Apr 8, the House passed Leadership’s flawed and inadequate Joint Ways and Means (JWM) Transportation Funding bill. However, it did not pass with a veto-proof majority, meaning, what the final revenue package looks like is very much still in play. Gov Patrick has promised to veto if the bill, in its current form, reaches his desk.
On Thursday 4/11/2013, the SENATE votes, and we believe that the progressive position –vote no– has a decent chance of prevailing… if we continue to contact the Senate, pressuring those on the fence to vote “NO”, and thanking and encouraging those Senators who have shown their commitment to a “no” vote already (the politics are rough! let’s give them our thanks and support for sticking it out!). Your calls and emails and other conversations* with your State Senator are just as important as ever. Keep it up. And thank you.
The Campaign for Our Communities is committed to improving the quality of life for Massachusetts families and strengthening our economy. We need to make smart investments in our people and communities. To fund those investments we support tax reforms that will raise substantial new revenue while holding down increases for low and middle income families.
- Our families and our communities need investments in the services, schools, and infrastructure that make Massachusetts a great place to live and work.
- In order to make the necessary investments, we will need to raise significant* new revenue
- That revenue should come primarily from the highest income earners.
*Significant means around $2 billion, the amount necessary to address MBTA, education, restore budget cuts to services, spurred by tax cuts in the 1990s and the Great Recession. A smaller amount will only be a temporary stop-gap, and we’ll continue going from crisis to crisis and continue to need to cut programs, raise fees, and raise taxes again. Let’s do it right the first time.
An Act to Invest in Our Communities
We need to invest in our communities and keep middle-class families working and earning! “An Act to Invest in Our Communities,” legislation filed in January 2013 by Rep. Jim O’Day [HD 1359] and Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz [SD 555] does just that.
By allowing us to invest in education, innovation and infrastructure, this proposal builds on our state’s strengths, making life better for our families today and into the future. By asking more from high income households and investors who received large windfalls from the Bush tax cuts, while raising the personal exemption as a way to hold down the tax increase for middle-class families, the bill raises needed revenue primarily from those who can best afford to pay.
With that revenue, we can keep the quality schools and services that make our state a good place to live and do business. [more information below]
Governor Patrick’s Revenue Proposal
In his State of the Commonwealth address in January 2013, Governor Patrick outlined a bold and exciting new proposal to raise revenue through raising the income tax while cutting the sales tax. The Governor’s plan is ambitious and follows the same core principles as the “Act to Invest In Our Community:” that investment in our infrastructure and education is imperative to our economic vitality now and in the future, and revenue should be raised progressively, with vulnerable citizens protected.
Legislators Can Demonstrate Commitment to Our Values
Over the course of the next few months, both the House and the Senate will consider the Governor’s proposal and other revenue bills and proposals. The climate seems ripe for new revenue but a strong grassroots case must continue to be made and pressure exerted on reluctant legislators. We continue to urge legislators to co-sponsor ACT TO INVEST, or make their support for new revenue public. Doing so will demonstrate a strong public commitment to the Governor’s aims and needs and values of all Massachusetts voters.
Details/Background on An Act to Invest in Our Communities
[ATI Fact sheet - PDF] [PDM Fact Sheet - PDF]
Massachusetts State and Local Taxes are Regressive
That means that the wealthiest Massachusetts earners have been paying far less in taxes than their poorer counterparts.
Provisions in 'Act to Invest'
- Restore the income tax rate from 5.25% to 5.95%, but also raise the personal exemption enough to hold down increases for middle-class families.
- Raise the tax rate on investors, but also provide a targeted exemption for middle-class seniors.
- Raise $2 Billion in net additional revenue to maintain funding for our communities, schools, and health care.
Changes in tax share under Governor's Proposal - GRAPH
screenshot from the “Choose Growth” Revenue Modeling Tool
Presentation (download here)
Changes in tax share under 'Act to Invest' - GRAPH
Chapter 62 of the General Laws is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION 1.
Section 3 of chapter 62 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out subsection B(b)(1)(A) and inserting in place thereof the following:–
A personal exemption of $7,900 for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
Section 3 of chapter 62 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby further amended by striking out subsection B(b)(1A)(A) and inserting in place thereof the following:–
A personal exemption of $10,300 for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
Section 3 of chapter 62 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby further amended by striking out subsection B(b)(2)(A) and inserting in place thereof the following:–
A personal exemption of $15,800 for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
Section 3 of chapter 62 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby further amended by adding a subsection D to read in its entirety as follows—
In determining the Part A and Part C taxable income of persons who are 65 or older, or who are disabled, an exemption shall be allowed upon the sum of the Part A and Part C adjusted gross income of such persons in an amount equal to the lesser of $2500 and one third of the sum of such Part A and Part C income for a single person, or a married person filing a separate return, whose total federal adjusted gross income is less than $40,000, and in an amount equal to the lesser of $5000 and one third of the sum of the Part A and Part C income for a married couple filing a joint return whose total federal adjusted gross income is less than $80,000, provided, however, that if only one spouse is 65 or older or is disabled, the exemption shall not exceed $2,500.
SECTION 2.
Section 4 of chapter 62 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out subsection (a)(1) and inserting in place thereof the following:–
Part A taxable income consisting of capital gains shall be taxed at the rate of 8.95 per cent for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
Section 4 of chapter 62 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby further amended by striking out subsection (a)(2) and inserting in place thereof the following:–
Part A taxable income consisting of interest and dividends shall be taxed at the rate of 8.95 per cent for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
Section 4 of chapter 62 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby further amended by striking out subsection (b) and inserting in place thereof the following:–
Part B taxable income shall be taxed at the rate of 5.95 per cent for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
Section 4 of chapter 62 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition as amended by 2010, 240, Sec. 111, is hereby further amended by striking out subsection (c) and inserting in place thereof the following:–
Part C taxable income shall be taxed at the rate of 8.95 percent for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, excepting Part C taxable income derived from the sale of investments which:
(1) are in a corporation which is domiciled in the commonwealth with a date of incorporation on or after January 1, 2011 which has less than $50 million in assets at the time of investment and complies with subsections (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(5), and (e)(6) of Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Service Code; and
(2) are held for 3 years or more, which shall be taxed at a rate of 3 per cent; provided, however, that in order to qualify for the 3 per cent rate, such investments shall be made within 5 years of the date of incorporation and, to the extent consistent with the provisions of this subsection, shall be in stock in a corporation that satisfies the requirements for treatment as “qualified small business stock” under section 1202 ( c) of the federal Internal Revenue Code, without regard to the requirement that the corporation be a C corporation.
On the Governor's Plan and 'Act to Invest'
NEW: The Governor’s office has posted a tool for citizens to see how the Governor’s proposal will affect different constituents. Download the file with Excel to plug in different scenarios: mass.gov/governor/agenda/ma-revenue-modeling-tool-.html
NEW: See how investment revenue, proposed in the Governor’s budget, impacts your community: mass.gov/governor/agenda/choose-growth.html
Over the course of the next few months, both the House and the Senate will consider the Governor’s proposal and other revenue bills and proposals. The climate seems ripe for new revenue but a strong grassroots case must continue to be made and pressure exerted on reluctant legislators. We continue to urge legislators to co-sponsor ACT TO INVEST, or make public their support for new revenue. Doing so will demonstrate a strong public commitment to the Governor’s aims and needs and values of all Massachusetts voters. While in the legislative process, the details of the various revenue packages will change, here are points of comparison between the Governor’s proposal and ‘Act to Invest,’ in their present form (2/2013).
Compare Changes under ‘Act to Invest’ and the Governor’s Proposal
(Information on the Governor’s proposal from Mass Budget and Policy)
|
ATI |
Gov |
|
| income tax rate |
5.95 |
6.25 |
| sales tax |
6.25 (no change) |
4.5 |
| revenue raised |
2 billion |
1.9 billion |
| personal exemption: single |
7,900 |
8,800 |
| personal exemption: married |
15,800 |
17,600 |
Other elements of ATI tax proposal (with no direct comparison to the Gov’s plan):
- Lower short term capital gains from 12% to 8.95%
- Increase Dividends and Interest income from 5.95% to 8.95%
- Exemptions that protect low income disabled and senior persons and Massachusetts small business investment income
Other elements of the Governor’s tax package (with no direct comparison to ATI) (From Mass Budget):
- Applying the sales tax to the purchase and installation of custom-modified computer software (raises $265 million/year)
- Eliminating dozens of special tax breaks that reduce personal income taxes for eligible filers (raises $1.1 billion/year)
- Eliminating a number of special tax breaks for businesses and clarifying the corporate tax code to prevent certain kinds of tax avoidance (raises $194 million/year)
- Indexing the Motor Fuels Tax to inflation, which would prevent the further erosion of collections from this source.
- Eliminating the sales tax exemption for soda and candy (raises $53 million/year)
- Increasing the cigarette tax by $1 per pack, thus raising the tax to $3.51 per pack (raises $150 million/year).
- Updating of tobacco tax laws in order to equalize tax rates on cigars and “smokeless” tobacco products with the tax rate applied to tobacco sold in the form of cigarettes (raises $16 million/year). (Smokeless tobacco products include items such as chewing tobacco, snuff, and nicotine-containing breath mints and lozenges.)
- Capping the revenue lost through the Film Tax Credit at $40 million (raises $40 million/year)
Additional $57 million in tax revenue will come from the following sources:
- $27 million from enhanced tax enforcement by the Department of Revenue, using special software and processes to identify promising collection and audit opportunities.
- $26.2 million from the agreement the Administration reached with Amazon.com for the online retailer to collect sales taxes from its sales to Massachusetts customers
- $2.6 million from the eliminating the exemption from the room occupancy excise tax for certain types of short term room rentals (such as B&Bs, rental vacation homes, and corporate executive temporary apartments).
Background: Why Do We Need More Revenue?
THE PROBLEM: CUTTING OUR FUTURE
Due to a series of tax cuts in the 90s/early 00s and the economic downturn of the Great Recession, Massachusetts has had to face a run of budget cuts, drastically affecting the quality of services in our cities and towns. {information adapted from Mass Budget and Policy}
- Massachusetts income tax cuts between 1998 and 2002, cost us $2.5 billion/year in lost revenue.1
- The result: even during the strongest years of economic growth our state was barely able to fund essential services, and in recessions we have had to cut deeply.
- When adjusted for inflation, since 2001:
- Funding for local aid is down 45%
- Funding for higher education is down 31%
- Funding for public health is down 25%
- Significant cuts have occurred across the entire state and local government
- Our MA budget gap for 2014 is expected, conservatively, to be $1.2 Billion
-
Over the last 3 decades (adjusting for economic growth):
- Total state aid to cities and towns in Massachusetts—including aid for education and general local aid—has declined by about $1.7 billion.
- Education funding is essentially flat.
- Non-education aid is currently at its lowest point in 30 years, with a $1.3 billion decline.
- Causes of reductions in local aid: State-level tax cuts, effects of the Great Recession
- From Mass Budget and Policy. [http://s.shr.lc/XwH3Am]
- Watch the MassBudget presentation on Taxes and Our Communities (YouTube)
Mass. Taxes Are Below National Average
Massachusetts total state and local taxes are lower than national average. [see MassBudget]
- Ask your legislator to publicly support Act to Invest
- Sign our petition to show your public support
- Spread the word in your community by writing a letter to the editor
- Connect with other supporters in your area — contact us to get started!
More on 'Act to Invest' and Revenue on Our Blog
Check our “What’s New” tab for our all our blog posts.
So Where Are We on the Transportation Funding Bill?
Lots of maneuvering but substantially less drama over the last few days as the Senate discusses procedural matters and leadership works to sweeten the revenue bill which came out of the House so as to attract more members. In case you are keeping score, here’s what we know:
1) Progressives are holding strong and working together to improve the bill.
2) Calls are continuing into swing Senators to shore up our support – and every call matters.
3) The Senate President put a new proposal on the table a few days ago. It adds some money but still falls short of our key principles – substantial new revenue, progressively raised, focused on more than transportation. Check out T for Mass’ analysis of how this proposal still falls short on Transportation.
4) The debate will begin at 10:00 am tomorrow, Saturday, April 13 – unless the Republicans move for a delay.
5) We will update our blog post progma.us/JWMSenateVote with the vote count as we learn it.
One thing that is clear from this week’s work in the Senate – when Progressives work together, when they are supported by your calls and tweets and facebook posts, we can get a better bill. We have power to influence the argument. And now the Senate President is on record supporting other important progressive policies like the minimum wage.
Letter: On Beacon Hill, little appetite for political risk
The political stakes around revenue are climbing, as Leadership, the legislature and the Governor continue to defend and negotiatetheir positions — to apply a short-term fix to transportation only, or fairly raise taxes in order to invest in education, human services, transportation and infrastructure. In Needham, Progressive Mass organizer Stacie Shapiro weighs in with her letter to the local paper:
Senate Vote on Leadership’s Revenue Proposal (JWM Transportation Financing)
Today, the Senate overwhelming voted for an improved revenue package for transportation. The “yes” votes included those progressive Senators who have worked hard with their partners inside and outside the State House over the past week to improve the bill. Right after the vote, progressive Senators (Chang-Diaz, Clark, Donnelly, Eldridge, Montigny and Wolf) released a statement saying:
“Through both the work of the Senate Ways and Means Committee and the amendment process, the transportation finance bill passed by the Senate today reaches a level of revenue that allows for meaningful investments in a fiscally-sound, 21st century transportation system. It is for this reason that we vote yes on this bill today.
We look forward to the bill continuing to the joint House-Senate conference committee. Should the bill be reported out of the conference committee having lost the revenue gains we made, it will also lose our support. We are grateful to all of our partners in the legislature, the Governor, advocates, and constituents across the state for their tireless work in crafting solutions to one of the most pressing issues in our Commonwealth.”
While these improvements are notable, the bill still falls short. As our colleagues in the transportation coalition said immediately before the vote:
“…it does not provide sufficient funding to move our transportation system into the 21st century. The bill’s revenue projections are too optimistic and the total funds insufficient. It will burden drivers and transit riders with unreasonable fare and toll hikes. It will take a long time to realize the revenues projected from the legislation, leading to further delays in important safety and public transportation investments.”
We urge the conference committee to do better and support progressive senators’ decision to withhold their backing should the bill that emerges from Conference Committee move us backward.
We remain disappointed that the legislature has not addressed the other revenue and investment needs of the Commonwealth specifically education and human services. We hope that these needs will be addressed in the budget process in a progressive fashion. While we recognize other social benefits for gas and cigarette taxes we remain concerned about their regressivity and disproportionate impact of low and middle income families.
SENATE VOTE COUNT
To Navigate, place cursor in the spreadsheet and use up/down arrows to move through the data. (spreadsheet may not load properly on iPads/iPhones; click here to see in separate window.)
House Vote on Leadership’s Revenue Proposal (JWM Transportation Financing)
UPDATE 1AM 4/9/2013: The JWM financing bill passed, with 55 representatives voting against, not enough to override a veto from the Governor (notably, 37 Progressive Caucus members voted to pass the bill). The roll call is in the spreadsheet below, but we want to make special acknowledgment of the Progressive Caucus legislators who voted No, and in so doing stood up to fight for a better bill: Reps. Andrews, Farley-Bouvier, Garballey, Hecht, Keefe, Provost, D. Rogers, Sciortino, Sullivan.
We encourage more legislators to stand up for a better bill and join these progressive champs in making sure the Governor’s veto holds, and taking leadership in crafting a good revenue bill that (1) is substantial enough for our needs, (2) is raised progressively, (3) addresses education, human services, transportation.
HOUSE VOTE COUNT
To Navigate, place cursor in the spreadsheet and use up/down arrows to move through the data. (spreadsheet may not load properly on iPads/iPhones; click here to see in separate window. PDF of the official roll call)
Needham legislator responds… a little late!
More from Team Needham’s adventures in advocacy for progressive new revenue to invest in our Commonwealth’s many pressing needs!
Our Needham neighbor Laurie wrote a great advocacy letter to one of our State Senators (Needham is split between Sen. Rush’s and Sen. Ross’s districts):
Dear Senator Ross:
I have been teaching in Weston, MA, Public Schools for 33 years. Even in Weston, we are seeing continuous cuts to staffing and programs. But my concern is for all public school students in the Commonwealth.
PLEASE Please support new revenue for public education and other services vital to our communities and our economy. (HB 2687/SB 1313) After six years of very tight budgets, it is time to stop making cuts.
The fairest way to raise new revenue is by increasing the income tax rate while also increasing the personal exemption, as both the Campaign for Our Communities and Governor Deval Patrick have proposed.
As an educator, I know firsthand how much my students would benefit from stable and adequate funding. Our communities and our economy depend on quality public education, from preschool through graduate school.
Progressive Caucus
Over at Blue Mass Group, posters asked about membership in the progressive caucus, because we are hearing that some are wavering in their commitment to stand up and fight for a better revenue bill.
We encourage progressives to reach out and find out — where do these progressives stand? Will they vote against the bad Joint transportation bill? Call them and let us know what you hear!
These are the members of the House progressive caucus, as far as we knew them as of just before the beginning of this legislative session:
House Progressive Caucus Members
Andrews, Denise 617-722-2460 — Denise.Andrews@mahouse.gov
Atkins, Cory 617-722-2692 — Cory.Atkins@mahouse.gov
Balser, Ruth 617-722-2396 — Ruth.Balser@mahouse.gov
Benson, Jennifer 617-722-2637 –Jennifer.Benson@mahouse.gov
Brodeur, Paul 617-722-2400 — Paul.Brodeur@mahouse.gov
Cabral, Antonio 617-722-2017 — Antonio.Cabral@mahouse.gov
Cariddi, Gailanne 617-722-2130 — Gailanne.Cariddi@mahouse.gov
Conroy, Thomas 617-722-2430 — Thomas.Conroy@mahouse.gov
Decker, Marjorie 617-722-2425 — Marjorie.Decker@mahouse.gov
Dykema, Carolyn 617-722-2210 — Carolyn.Dykema@mahouse.gov
Ehrlich, Lori 617-722-2014 — Lori.Ehrlich@mahouse.gov
Farley-Bouvier, Tricia 617-722-2240 — Tricia.Farley-Bouvier@mahouse.gov
Forry, Linda 617-722-2080 — Linda.DorcenaForry@mahouse.gov
Fox, Gloria 617-722-2810 — Gloria.Fox@mahouse.gov
Garballey, Sean 617-722-2090 — Sean.Garballey@mahouse.gov
Garlick, Denise – 617-722-2070 — Denise.Garlick@mahouse.gov
Hecht, Jonathan — 617-722-2140 — Jonathan.Hecht@mahouse.gov
Henriquez, Carlos – 617-722-2060 — Carlos.Henriquez@mahouse.gov
Hogan, Kate – 617-722-2637 — Kate.Hogan@mahouse.gov
Kaufman, Jay – 617-722-2320 — Jay.Kaufman@mahouse.gov
Khan, Kay – 617-722-2011 — Kay.Khan@mahouse.gov
Kulik, Stephen – 617-722-2380 — Stephen.Kulik@mahouse.gov
Lewis, Jason – 617-722-2017 — Jason.Lewis@mahouse.gov
Linsky, David – 617-722-2575 — David.Linsky@mahouse.gov
Mahoney, John – 617-722-2450 — John.Mahoney@mahouse.gov
Malia, Elizabeth – 617-722-2060 — Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov
Mark, Paul – 617-722-2210 — Paul.Mark@mahouse.gov
Michlewitz, Aaron – 617-722-2400 — Aaron.M.Michlewitz@mahouse.gov
O’Day, James – 617-722-2370 — James.O’Day@mahouse.gov
Peake, Sarah – 617-722-2015 — Sarah.Peake@mahouse.gov
Peisch, Alice – 617-722-2070 — Alice.Peisch@mahouse.gov
Provost, Denise – 617-722-2263 –Denise.Provost@mahouse.gov
Rushing, Byron – 617-722-2783 — Byron.Rushing@mahouse.gov
Sánchez, Jeffrey – 617-722-2130 –Jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov
Sannicandro, Tom – 617-722-2013 — Tom.Sannicandro@mahouse.gov
Schmid, Paul – 617-722-2014 — Paul.Schmid@mahouse.gov
Scibak, John – 617-722-2240 — John.Scibak@mahouse.gov
Sciortino, Carl – 617-722-2013 — Carl.Sciortino@mahouse.gov
Smizik, Frank – 617-722-2676 — Frank.Smizik@mahouse.gov
Story, Ellen – 617-722-2012 — Ellen.Story@mahouse.gov
Sullivan, David – 617-722-2070 — David.Sullivan@mahouse.gov
Turner, Cleon – 617-722-2090 — Cleon.Turner@mahouse.gov
Walsh, Martin – 617-722-2020 — Martin.Walsh@mahouse.gov
To be quite frank, the State House is all a frenzy with updates and rumors about who’s where on what. And it’s changing all the time.
The best thing to do is call EVERYONE on this list. When you learn their position, share it in comments here or on the BMG thread that started this line of inquiry!
We know grassroots and constituent contact works. Get dialing.
Senate Progressives are Fighting Hard: Send Your Encouragement!
[skip to calls] - The politics around this topic are shifting and volatile. We’re updating as the landscape changes. For our original post, click here. For broader context of the revenue debate, see: progressivemass.com/ourcommunities
On April 2, the Beacon Hill leadership unveiled the pre-conferenced Joint Ways and Means revenue proposal (“JWM“) (effectively, a 
counter-proposal to “Act to Invest in Our Communities” and the Governor’s) which is wholly inadequate to meet our needs (see our press release, here).
On April 8, the House passed the measure — but without a veto-proof margin. The Senate votes Saturday, where there’s a chance to stop a bad bill, right then and there. If it passes, it goes to the Governor, who’s promised a veto if it reaches him in its current form.
On April 9, to win additional support, the Senate President released an updated proposal calling for more revenue. While the Governor praised the progress made, our friends at T for Mass have analyzed the new measure and found it lacking.
Between now and Saturday, our Senators will be under intense pressure from leadership to support the JWM bill. Some deal-sweetening, in an attempt to coax individual Senators on board, is expected. Our Senators need to hear that we’ll stand with them if they stand strong for real (ie, substantial) investment in our many needs now, and invest in our future economic strength.
Our script and key talking points are below. And, remember, your ability to get others to call too can make the difference. Get started!
Progressive Massachusetts Opposes House and Senate Leadership Revenue Plan
Urges Lawmakers to Vote No
Progressive Massachusetts joins the Campaign for Our Communities and activists across the state in opposing the revenue plan unveiled yesterday by Speaker Deleo and Senate President Murray, and urges all lawmakers to vote against the transportation finance plan next week, and go back to the table for further discussion on how to truly meet the Commonwealth’s investment needs.
“The proposal put forward yesterday, which raises just $500 million for transportation investments only, is inadequate to the substantial need we have here in Massachusetts to invest in our infrastructure, our education system and our future,” said Executive Director, Deborah Shah.
“Governor Patrick and many state lawmakers showed real vision and a commitment to supporting our communities by proposing a nearly two billion dollar plan. Our members are fully behind any proposal that will raises substantial revenue, in a progressive manner, to invest in education, transportation and human services.
“Progressive Massachusetts members include community leaders, political activists and citizen volunteers, who have been fighting for over a year for the revenue necessary to meet the state’s needs. We will be calling our elected representatives, demanding they reject the current proposal, and we will be watching carefully to see how our legislators vote.”
Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide, diverse grassroots organization that organizes around progressive issues in Massachusetts, helps to elect and support progressive candidates for public office who are committed to making a difference on these issues, and holds elected officials accountable to progressive positions and values. This week, Progressive Massachusetts released a scorecard of last session’s roll call votes and intends to track and report this session’s votes on an on-going basis.
More resources on Revenue and Investing in Our Communities:progressivemass.com/ourcommunities
Needham Letter to Editor: Pay now or later?
Over the last 12 years, Needham has lost 40% in local aid from the state, translating to significant cuts in services and education. This is a direct result of two things:
1) ill-conceived tax cuts in the dot-com 1990s, when legislators couldn’t imagine the good times ending, and
(2) the good times ending and the Great Recession.
Due to this loss of revenue, the Commonwealth now has a structural deficit of roughly $1.5 billion dollars.
Governor Patrick and other legislators (through the legislation ‘An Act to Invest in Our Communities’) have proposed plans to raise roughly $2 billion — enough to address our structural short fall and restore some of the cuts to our services (like health care, disability services, more) and education and transportation/infrastructure.
These proposals differ in their details, but both raise the income tax and increase the personal deduction, which has the net effect of keeping taxes level for half of MA income-earners (the poorer half) while effecting modest increases on the other 50%.
GRAPH: Proposed Plans Raise Revenue Fairly
In other words, it is a progressive tax increase, which many believe is the fairest kind of tax to fund those things we do together through government. These plans were endorsed last week by 57 Mass. economists.
These are bold and courageous plans, and unfortunately, Beacon Hill as a whole has not yet risen to the demands of our moment. Instead, Speaker DeLeo has signaled he will propose a much smaller revenue package, which would effectively only cover the MBTA crisis — and leave the other fiscal fires to be put out another day (and another tax battle for another session).