I think this whole “we need to fix the broken State House” message is catching on:
- Legislature does the people’s work behind closed doors by Jonathan Hecht, Boston Globe
- Sad state of affairs on Beacon Hill by Jerry Berger, Commonwealth Magazine
And perhaps it’s for good reason: as the Globe noted last week, this is the slowest and least productive legislative session in decades. Only 10 bills have been signed into law since the session began in January under the shiny new Democratic trifecta on Beacon Hill.
So these must have been bold progressive priorities that were stymied by having a Republican governor for eight years, right? Right??
Wrong. Most of the bills have been minor, or supplemental spending bills to keep the lights on. And the big bill of the session thus far, which has yet to reach Healey’s desk, is an enormous tax cut package–one of Baker’s priorities from last session.
With a crumbling MBTA, under- and inequitably-funded public schools, and a dangerously dilapidated public housing stock, what does it say about our lawmaker’s priorities that a tax cut bill may be the first major legislation to pass this session?
State House Scoop
Senate releases tax cut bill, omits two of three tax cuts for rich proposed by House
After weeks of anticipation, the Senate released their proposal for the tax cut plan this week. And, friend, I don’t get to say this a lot, so I’m going to savor the moment. Give me a second. *deep breath* Ok, here it goes: it’s better than we expected.
The House’s version proposed a whopping $1.1 billion in permanent tax cuts, with $440 million specifically going to the super-wealthy and corporations. The Senate’s version, on the other hand, costs $590 million total, with $185 million going to the wealthiest Bay Staters.
Hey, I said it was better than expected, I didn’t say it was great!
The House’s version included three glaring tax giveaways to the rich: (1) slashing the short term capital gains tax from 12% to 5% (a boon for wealthy people who play the stock market), (2) a tax cut for multi-state corporations (a policy lobbied for by companies like Citizens Bank, Santander US, BNY Mellon, and Dunkin), and (3) raising the estate tax threshold from $1 million to $2 million (allowing the wealthiest families in Massachusetts to maintain even more inherited wealth instead of investing it in the community).
Of these three regressive tax cuts, the Senate’s version only kept one: the estate tax cut. And let’s be clear: by raising the threshold for this tax on inherited wealth, our lawmakers are deepening the already atrocious racial wealth gap in Massachusetts. That being said, it could have been worse; the fact that the Senate omitted the other two disastrous tax cuts is an enormous victory for progressives and a testament to the grassroots organizing and outreach in the wake of the House vote. If you contacted your senator about this tax cut bill, thank you. If you want to email your senator today and urge them not to cut the estate tax, I wouldn’t mind that either.
The Senate version also includes a number of proposals aimed at addressing the housing crisis in the state, including increasing the cap for the Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP)—a Deval Patrick-era program to incentivize housing development in gateway cities. It might sound good at first, but HDIP is a market-friendly solution that makes no requirement that new housing be affordable. Consequently, it tends to act more as a catalyst for gentrification and displacement than lowering housing costs for people who need it most.
Lastly, both the House and the Senate versions included modest tax cuts for renters, people with dependents, and other middle-income groups. But a modest tax credit, a year in the future, does not address these immediate needs for our most vulnerable neighbors. And as we always ask when discussing proposals to cut revenue streams: why reduce our capacity to invest in our underserved communities in the first place?
The Senate is slated to debate and vote on this bill on Thursday 6/15. After that, the House and Senate versions will head to a conference committee where a compromise version is hashed out behind closed doors. In other words, it's not over 'till it's over.
--
Missed a Scoop or two? You can find a full archive of all past Saturday Scoops on our blog.
--
Despite 2020 climate commitments, 21 of 30 new schools in MA will use fossil fuels
The Climate Roadmap bill, signed into law in 2020, committed Massachusetts to net-zero emissions by 2050. (This works out to a grim timeline of achieving 100% renewable energy as late as 2090, but that’s another story). But apparently, nobody told The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA): out of the 30 new schools approved to be built in Massachusetts, 21 will use fossil fuels for energy. That’s 21 new school buildings that will be burning fossil fuels far beyond 2050, or even 2090. Climate activists and municipalities have been sounding the alarm on this for years; in 2021, 100 local officials signed a letter urging the MSBA to require that new school heating and cooling systems be fueled by electric energy, to no avail.
As the Globe points out, new buildings are the low-hanging fruit of the transition to green energy. And if we can’t even pick the low-hanging fruit, what does that mean for the higher-hanging fruit needed to stave off climate crisis? Assuming you can even see the fruit tree through all the wildfire smoke, that is.
--
Take Action
MA Indigenous Legislative Agenda Lobby Day Thursday 6/15
Join us on Thursday 6/15 for a lobby day hosted by the MA Indigenous Legislative Agenda and United American Indians of New England. We will gather on the State House steps for a rally at 11:30am and then we’ll head inside to ask our legislators to support the Indigenous Legislative Agenda, including bills to prohibit the use of Native American mascots in schools, to establish Indigenous Peoples Day, and to protect Native American heritage.
--
And last, a not-so-fun fact to kick off your weekend
You thought I was done talking about the MSBA, didn’t you? Sadly, I wasn’t: the Boston Globe reported this week that there are vast racial disparities in the funding that school districts receive for construction projects. According to data from the Massachusetts School Building Authority, districts with a majority white student population receive an average of $10,000 per student for school projects, compared to just $6,400 per student in districts with a majority of students of color. In the districts with the highest percentage of white students, often small rural schools, they received about $16,500 per student—about 2.5x the average amount spent on students in majority-Black districts.
--
That's all for this week! Here's hoping we get at least a few hours of sunshine to soak up this weekend. I know I could use some.
Until next time,
Erin Leahy
Executive Director, Act on Mass
--