Spring goes by a different name on Beacon Hill: Budget Season. When most of us are dreaming of daffodils and counting down the days to daylight savings (just seven, thank goodness), our state government is dreaming of earmarks and appropriations. And, unfortunately, tax cuts for the rich. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Here’s the deal: every March the governor kicks off the budget process by filing a proposed budget–essentially the Healey administration’s dream scenario for how the state spends and makes money for the next fiscal year. Then, the House decides what to keep and what to change, and then the Senate does the same. Eventually, in June or July (almost always past the deadline), the legislature sends their version back to the governor to be signed and receive line-item vetoes.
In other words, now that Healey has released her budget, our fate rests in the hands of the legislature–rarely a good place for our fate to be.
State House Scoop
Healey’s budget to the political right of Baker’s, includes tax giveaway to the wealthy
Governor Healey released her proposal for the fiscal year 2024 state budget on Wednesday. I’ll cut to the chase: it’s not great. In fact, it’s more conservative than the budget proposed by former Republican Governor Charlie Baker last year. The proposal includes about $1 billion in permanent tax cuts, nearly half of which is designed to exclusively benefit the wealthiest Bay Staters. And whenever we cut taxes, we cut funding and services that disproportionately impact low-income and BIPoC communities.
Another reason this budget is egregious: voters passed the Fair Share Amendment (i.e. question 1) in November to generate $1 billion in new revenue annually for education and transportation. In response, the Healey administration wants to spend almost exactly $1 billion on tax cuts, effectively canceling out the net impact from Fair Share. This move flies in the face of the demonstrated will of the people at the ballot box, and shows the administration’s real priority: pleasing wealthy donors and business owners. You can read Raise Up Mass’ (the coalition behind the Fair Share Amendment) excellent statement on the budget here.)
Healey’s budget: the nitty gritty
- Slashes the tax on short-term capital gains (i.e. stock trading) from 12% to 5%. (A blatant giveaway to the ultra-wealthy in the state.)
- Triples the threshold for the estate tax from $1 million to $3 million. (A blatant giveaway to the ultra-wealthy in the state, part two.)
- Fully funds the K-12 public education per the Student Opportunity Act. (This is good, but funding a landmark education bill from 2018 is doing the bare minimum.)
- Funding to make community college free for people over 25 without college degrees. (Absolutely a step in the right direction, but why this bizarre, arbitrary requirement? Why are we incentivising 22 year olds to wait another 3 years to pursue a degree? Community college (and all public higher education) should be free for everyone.)
- $600 child and family tax credit for dependents under 13 and disabled adults. (An extra $600 per year for struggling families is woefully inadequate to address the skyrocketing cost of living in Massachusetts. Plus, families with children over the age of 12 receive no tax relief from this credit.)
- Increases rental deduction cap from $3,000 to $4,000. (This means about $50 back in the pockets of renters, annually. Don’t spend it all in one place!)
Boston City Council scapegoats the legislature for not passing rent control in Boston
Rent control is supported by a remarkable two-thirds of Bostonians. It’s no wonder then that Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, who ran on a pro-rent control platform, won her historic election last year. Then again, the devil’s in the details; Mayor Wu’s rent stabilization plan was finally unveiled and debated among the city council last week, and received criticism from all sides of the issue.
Progressives on the Council argue that Wu’s proposal doesn’t go far enough, and insist the city should bring the proposal in line with the Homes For All bill filed in the state legislature. Both plans would tie rent increases to inflation, but Homes For All would cap rent increases at 5% per year, compared to Wu’s 10%.
There’s a statehouse connection here, I promise: more conservative councilors argue that pursuing rent stabilization is a waste of effort given that, even if it passed the city council, it would then have to pass the Legislature, and Governor’s office:
"With housing initiatives, the council gets them through, mayor signs off and then they hit a brick wall heading up the hill," City Councilor Michael Flaherty said during last Wednesday’s hearing. "I don't want to see us get all, you know, in a tizzy and divided and have a big free-for-all when, you know, if there's not a likelihood of success."
The state house’s inaction on housing affordability, and their reticence to pass home rule petitions (such local rent control) has given local elected officials an excuse not to fight for the will of two-thirds of their constituents. Some beacon of democracy.
If you are a Boston resident, you can submit testimony in favor of passing a strong rent control measure here.
SUBMIT TESTIMONY FOR RENT CONTROL IN BOSTON >>
Take Action
Support an official COVID Remembrance Day
With more than one million people dead from Covid-19 in the US alone — and 24,000 of those losses in Massachusetts — we are experiencing a pandemic of grief that can only be lessened by recognizing our losses. Memorialization and recognition are essential to the process of healing and recovery. Representatives on Beacon Hill are considering a resolution to recognize an annual Covid Remembrance Day, HD.3821.
Take action now by sending a letter to your elected officials in support of an official Covid Remembrance Day, and send the letter to three other people to sign too!
EMAIL YOUR REP ABOUT COVID REMEMBRANCE DAY >>
--
Not-So-Fun Fact UPDATE: Healey on Public Records Law
The governor has been doubling down on her anti-transparency stance in the corner office, denying several public records requests from journalists in her first months in office. The Boston Globe requested Healey’s daily calendar, travel log, call log, and communications between Healey and legislative leaders — information that provides crucial context about who she's talking to and what her internal priorities are. Emails and call logs were denied. Andrew Quemere of The Mass Dump requested Baker administration emails about police or law enforcement, and was also denied any records, with the Healey administration claiming their policy was not retroactively applicable to previous administrations.
This behavior is… *sigh* unsurprising. In his analysis of the Healey administration’s recent behavior on PRL, GBH columnist Dan Kennedy notes that she is a two-time winner of the New England Muzzle Awards — yes that is an actual thing to highlight the folks who uphold opaque and undemocratic practices in New England. Good thing they name 10 awardees each year; imagine if Healey, Spilka, and Mariano all had to compete for one crown.
--
That’s all for this week! Stay warm and dry out there,
Erin Leahy
Executive Director, Act on Mass
--