How is Trump hurting the Massachusetts economy? Let me count the ways.
But 2025 has flipped this dynamic on its head. Since January, the state's unemployment rate has jumped above the US rate and is rising far faster. We are also among the states with the
Indeed, there's a decent argument that Massachusetts has already fallen into a mild local recession, particularly judging from state tax collections. Sales tax receipts have flatlined in recent months, suggesting a worrisome pullback in consumer spending. Meanwhile, income from paychecks is decelerating fast, having fallen by half from its 2024 average.
Advertisement
It doesn't take a Hercule Poirot or Benoit Blanc to figure out why the Massachusetts economy is fading faster than the rest of the country: Blame the unfriendly regime in Washington, D.C.
National economic policy is increasingly organized as a kind of anti-Massachusetts economic policy, including a battery of targeted assaults at the ramparts of our economic strength. And I'm not even talking about the needless tariffs and the nettlesome trade war, since those are hitting states far more exposed to disruptions in international trade than Massachusetts.
Advertisement
Rather, let's start with the economic fallout from the Trump administration's direct attack on Harvard.
Harvard is a huge job creator and sustaining force in the local economy. It sends paychecks to professors in Brookline, lab technicians from Somerville, and valued staff members from Beverly to Quincy. It sustains local businesses in the Longwood neighborhood and Harvard Square. And it pursues long-term regional planning and large capital projects (in Allston and elsewhere) with a scale and consistency matched only by local governments.
The federal government has hampered all of this economic activity by freezing government grants, introducing a new endowment tax, and blunting Harvard's ability to attract foreign students. Hiring will slow. Construction plans will be put on hold. And even people who continue to collect their Harvard paychecks are likely to spend less of them, since their financial futures are now less secure. Combined, these direct and indirect effects will likely sap several billion dollars from the local economy every year.
And that's just one institution. Dozens of other colleges and universities in Massachusetts face similar, though more muted threats. About 4 percent of all the income earned in the state
Advertisement
Add the imperiled research grants that normally go to our nation-leading medical centers, and Massachusetts may be more vulnerable than any other state in the country. No one gets more federal health and science funding, amounting to a good deal more than
That makes another turn of the economic screw, because health care has traditionally been a great economic stabilizer for Massachusetts. Now massive threatened cuts to federal grants are bringing austerity to research hospitals, just as they've done at universities.
The list goes on, from the foundering of offshore wind to the risk of looming Medicaid cuts. And while the state can draw on some of its strengths — its ample rainy day fund, its lack of divided government, and the stability of property taxes — it will be hard to prevent the state economy from further cracking in the heat of this hostile climate.
Ultimately, the broadest and most far-reaching problem may be the Trump administration's general distaste for our state's progressive values: its belief that we are tainted by 'wokeness,' by unchecked immigration, and by our enduring commitment to things like vaccines, transgender rights, and abortion access.
We are not the only such target. California is a major scapegoat — see the current immigration standoff or reports of a
And this is why an economic slowdown seems so unavoidable for Massachusetts. Not only are we being dragged down by the war against Harvard, against university culture, and against the kind of research that has made us a hub of innovation. But businesses and families rightly feel that they cannot take risks, cannot make big new investments, cannot pursue promising new ventures or leave their jobs for new careers. If things don't work out, there may be a Massachusetts-sized hole in the safety net.
Advertisement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4. It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators. Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise. 'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure. 'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent. When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged. 'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition. Sen. Jim Justice ( said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline. 'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.' Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016. Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes. 'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.' Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap. 'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters. Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included. 'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tillis becomes third GOP senator to oppose Trump' s big, beautiful bill
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis (R) announced after a meeting with Senate GOP leaders and colleagues Saturday afternoon that he will vote 'no' on both the motion to proceed and final passage of the Republican megabill to implement President Trump's agenda because of deep cuts to federal Medicaid funding. Tillis said he wants Senate Republican leaders to drop their plan to lower the cap on healthcare provider taxes and instead embrace the Medicaid language passed by the House last month, which would cut much less federal funding in the program. 'Oh no. The data hasn't changed so I got to vote no,' he said. The North Carolina Republican said Senate leaders should return to 'starting with the House baseline.' 'I'm going to vote no on motion to proceed and on final passage,' he said. Tillis's strong opposition to the bill is a significant development because two other Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.), have already said they will vote 'no.' That gives substantially more leverage to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and other swing-vote senators to demand changes to the bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) can only afford three defections from his conference and still pass the bill with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Vance given their 53-seat majority. Collins said she will vote Saturday to begin debate on the megabill but she says she wants to make several changes to it and is not guaranteed to vote 'yes' on final passage. 'I am planning to vote for the motion to proceed. Generally, I give deference to the majority leader's power to bring bills to the Senate floor. Does not in any way predict how I'm going to vote on final passage,' Collins told reporters Saturday. Tillis said he would help House Republican colleagues by 'defending their bill,' which would prohibit states that expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act from increasing health care provider taxes and barring states that did not expand the program from establishing new provider taxes. The Senate bill would cut more deeply into federal Medicaid funding for states by reducing the 6 percent cap on health care provider taxes by half a percentage point a year starting in 2028, reducing the cap down to 3.5 percent in 2032. States use healthcare provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding, as the federal government matches what states collect in those taxes. Johnson, the Wisconsin senator, said in an interview with 'Fox & Friends Weekend' that he will vote against the motion to proceed to the bill on Saturday. 'I'm not going to vote for motion to proceed today. We just got the bill. I got my first copy about 1:23 in the morning, this morning,' he said. He said lawmakers have preliminary budget scores on less than half of the legislation. 'We don't even have the scores,' he said. 'We shouldn't take the [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi [(D-Calif.)] approach and pass this bill to find out what's in it,' he warned. 'We need to have a debate.' Paul, the Kentucky senator and other 'no' vote, has repeatedly said he will oppose the bill because it includes language to raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Thune, Vance cut deal with Senate conservatives to save GOP megabill
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Vice President Vance struck a deal Saturday night with a group of Senate conservatives who want bigger Medicaid spending cuts to save President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' from stalling. The deal hatched in Thune's office late Saturday evening paved the way for Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) to flip his 'no' vote on proceeding to the bill to 'aye' and for Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) to also vote for the bill. Without their votes, the 940-page bill to boost spending on border security, immigration enforcement and the military and to cut an array of taxes could not have advanced on the Senate floor. It advanced 51-49. The vote to proceed to the sprawling budget reconciliation package remained open on the Senate floor for more than three and a half hours, stuck for a long time at 47 yes's and 50 no's. For much of that time, the four conservatives — Johnson, Scott, Lee and Lummis — huddled off the Senate floor to negotiate a way to add new language to the bill to further cut federal Medicaid spending. The language in the revised Senate bill is projected to reduce Medicaid spending by $930 billion over the next decade, according to a preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget office. But Scott and his allies wanted to do more to reduce the amount of money spent on able-bodied adults who are allowed to enroll into Medicaid in states that expanded the program under the Affordable Care Act, which was former President Obama's signature domestic achievement. 'I met with the president today, met with him quite a bit. Met with the vice president. We all wanted to get to yes and we're all working together to make sure that happens,' Scott told reporters after voting to advance the bill. He said conservatives want to 'stop Blue State governors from taking advantage of Red States.' 'Paying for health care for illegal immigrants with federal tax dollars is going to end,' Scott said. Senate conservatives say that Thune and Trump have committed to support Scott's proposal to lower the 90 percent federal matching share for new Medicaid enrollees in expansion states. 'We have been working behind the scenes,' Johnson told reporters who flipped his initial 'no' vote on beginning debate on the GOP megabill to 'aye' to allow it move forward. Johnson said conservatives got an agreement from leadership to vote on an amendment 'that we're confident of.' 'At a certain point we just don't allow single working-age, able-bodied childless adults to sign onto ObamaCare expansion and get that 9-1 match,' he said. Johnson said that states receive a much lower federal matching share for disabled children enrolled in regular Medicaid. He said that conservatives whipped 'something very similar' Scott's proposal within the Senate GOP conference and asserted 'it's very close' to getting the 50 votes in needs to be included into the legislation. Senators will now spend up to 20 hours debating the reconciliation package before holding a marathon series of amendment votes known as a vote-a-rama. A final vote may not happen until Monday. Senate conservatives feel confident that Trump can help secure a majority vote for cutting the federal Medicaid match share in expansion states, even though the proposal is likely to be a hard sell with Republicans who have already complained loudly about the Medicaid cuts already in the bill. 'The leadership wants to do this, too,' Johnson said. 'This is what was key about the two-hour meeting with the president.' He said Trump is 'willing to do what needs to be done to put this nation on a path of eventually balancing our budget.' The cap on enrolling new people into expanded Medicaid would be implemented at a future date to give states some time to adjust to the change. Selling the proposal to more centrist Republicans in both the Senate and House, however, won't be easy. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) declared in early May that a proposal to directly reduce the enhanced federal match for states that expanded Medicaid was off the table. And Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who negotiated with Thune to increase funding for a rural hospital relief fund and to increase the flow of federal Medicaid dollars to Missouri over the next four years, warned GOP colleagues to stay away from bigger cuts to the program. 'I think that this effort to cut Medicaid funding is a mistake,' he said. 'We've been able for Missouri to delay it. … That's not true of all the states. And unless changes are made, after 2030 you'll see Medicaid reductions in my state. I'm going to do everything I can to defeat that.' 'I think that this has been unhappy episode here in Congress, this effort to cut Medicaid. And I think, frankly, my party needs to do some soul-searching. If you want to be a working-class party, you've got to deliver to working-class people. You cannot take away health care from working people,' he said. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has also voiced strong concerns about the Medicaid funding cuts in the bill, said she voted to proceed to the bill Saturday out of deference to her leadership but warned that does not mean she will necessarily vote for the bill on final passage.
