Fear not, the millionaires tax is bearing fruit
Advertisement
By supporting massive investments in education, from prekindergarten through college, and in transportation infrastructure that will enable new housing production across the state, Fair Share is addressing the real drivers of outmigration. New policies such as free school meals, free buses, and free community college are making the state more affordable for middle-class families.
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
I hope our neighbors in Rhode Island join us in building an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.
Jonathan Cohn
Policy director
Progressive Mass
Boston
Fair Share's foes taking their scare tactics to R.I.
Opponents of the Fair Share Amendment continue rehashing the same tired arguments that failed to persuade voters to reject Massachusetts' new millionaires tax ('The millionaires tax: A cautionary tale for R.I.').
Advertisement
When Fair Share appeared on the ballot, a few wealthy businesspeople spent millions of dollars trying to convince voters that it wouldn't generate much money because all the millionaires would leave, and that the money wouldn't really go to transportation and public education. They were wrong on both counts.
The new tax
And in just two years, Fair Share has already made an enormous difference for the people of Massachusetts. It's funding universal free school meals, free bus service with expanded routes and service hours, and tuition-free community college. It's funding school building repairs and state aid to local school districts, road and bridge repairs throughout the state, and massive repairs at the MBTA.
That's a tale Massachusetts should be proud to tell.
Harris Gruman
Executive director
SEIU Massachusetts State Council
Somerville
The writer was a cofounder of the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
10 hours ago
- Boston Globe
No, Mr. President, race is not a biological reality
But the fight over race in education is not confined to the classroom, and the embrace of perverse and offensive narratives is by no means restricted to the progressive left. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up In March, President Trump issued an executive order titled ' Some of what Trump objects to is indeed troubling. It is appropriate to be concerned about ideological litmus tests, Advertisement Yet buried in the executive order is a statement so wrongheaded that it should have set off alarms. In a section excoriating the Smithsonian Institution, the document condemns the museum because it 'promotes the view that race is not a biological reality but a social construct' and because it states 'Race is a human invention.' But race is a human invention, not a biological truth. For any educated person to claim otherwise is on par with claiming that diseases can be cured through bloodletting or that astrology is a reliable guide to the future. That the president of the United States would make such a claim in an official statement of policy is appalling. By now it is a firmly established scientific truth that race has within populations commonly categorized as racial groups. The differences between such groups are so few as to make them genetically indistinguishable. For all intents and purposes, in other words, the DNA of white people is impossible to differentiate from the DNA of Black people, Asian people, or Native American people. Of course there are physical variations among populations that originated at points far apart on the globe. But the idea that those variations are racial is a relatively recent fiction. It was not until the late 17th century that the notion that mankind could be sorted into distinct biological races first made its appearance. In Advertisement Today such taxonomies seem absurd. So does the view, If the president truly believes that race is a fixed biological reality, he is endorsing a view long discredited by science and rejected by Americans across the political spectrum. 'Racial criteria are irrational, irrelevant, [and] odious to our way of life,' asserted Thurgood Marshall on behalf of the NAACP in 1950. ' Marshall was speaking as a constitutional lawyer, but modern genetics has confirmed what scientists in the 1950s could only have surmised: Racial categories have no objective biological basis. That doesn't mean that race is meaningless, but that its meaning is social, not biological. It is a product of historical, cultural, and political forces. The concept of race was invented to categorize and rank human beings, often for purposes of domination and exclusion. Over time, those categories may have come to feel 'natural' or self-evident, but they are anything but. They are constructs, not codes etched in our genes. Advertisement It is deeply unsettling to see the White House resurrecting the idea that race is a fixed, objective, biological reality. Such thinking has an ugly pedigree. It undergirded slavery, segregation, and eugenics. It lent scientific respectability to white supremacy. It's the reason 'one-drop' rules existed and why anti-miscegenation laws once barred people from marrying across racial lines. It is not the language of truth and sanity — it is the language of race science and racial hierarchy. Trump may imagine that he is striking a blow against leftist dogma, but this isn't a left-vs.-right issue. The point has been underscored across the political spectrum — including by the Supreme Court's most conservative jurist. 'Race is a social construct,' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his 2023 concurrence in the landmark case of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. 'We may each identify as members of particular races for any number of reasons, having to do with our skin color, our heritage, or our cultural identity.' But that doesn't change reality, he continued. 'All racial categories are little more than stereotypes, suggesting that immutable characteristics somehow conclusively determine a person's ideology, beliefs, and abilities. Of course, that is false.' Clearly there are some human groupings that are genetically determined and have clear physical and reproductive markers — blood type, biological sex, Advertisement That is why the stakes here are so high. A government that treats race as a biological certainty is a government that legitimizes inequality and division. It is not 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History' to claim that people's character, capabilities, or civic status can be inferred from inherited traits. It is doing the opposite. And it opens the door to even more alarming policies. If race is 'real' in a biological sense, what follows? Race-based restrictions? Genetic profiling? The lionizing of historical figures with The president often casts himself as a fighter against political correctness and progressive overreach. But in this case, he isn't fighting back — he's reaching back, to a time when science was bent to serve bigotry. The right answer to racial dogma from the left isn't racial pseudoscience from the right. It is fidelity to truth, and to the ideal that all men are created equal. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
11 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Churches, politics, and taxes
One need not explicitly preach that one political candidate should be chosen over another. Let the Bible readings and the Gospel be the springboards for reminding those in the pews about their Jesus-established obligations and which politicians support those obligations. Advertisement Many parishioners go to church to be nourished in their faith and seek a heavenly destination. These are good reasons. Nevertheless, while politics brought into church can make our celebrations an extension of the upsetting news we are all confronted with every day, that confrontation is necessary when the news screams of hatred, cruelty, fear, racism, hellish political decisions, and evil, inhuman behavior, such as 'Alligator Alcatraz.' Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up David Pierce Sandwich IRS's pivot ushers in a new set of concerns The simple but irksome question 'Do we really want churches to become more political?' hastened me to express an angst-ridden response: No — never. Eugene Scott raised the question in the context of the recent decision by the IRS to relax the constraints of the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which prohibited churches and other tax-exempt organizations from endorsing political candidates. Advertisement My disposition changed when I got to Scott's reference to Governor Gavin Newsom of California, who recently voiced his opinion regarding the revised interpretation of the Johnson Amendment. Newsom said, 'I don't know if it's healthy — I don't even know if it's legal, but it's not surprising. I just find it politically convenient.' He added, 'It's called gaming the system — in every way.' His terse but judicious statement brought a smile back to my face. With keen insight, Scott notes that 'this pivot' by the IRS 'is not as sharp of a turn as some proponents of the separation of church and state may believe, because, for better or worse, pastors have used their pulpits to make political stances for decades. This is in part because politicians often make decisions that can positively impact churches — allowing them to receive federal dollars.' As a Catholic octogenarian who goes to church frequently, I have never had a priest speak from the pulpit other than on the Gospel without any reference whatsoever to any other cause. However, I believe Scott makes a valid point. Francis J. Hickey II Lexington Online debate: From 'pastors walk a fine line' to who is 'we'? Following is an edited sampling of comments posted on Eugene Scott's op-ed: Churches are splitting apart as congregants, many of whom have known each other for decades, feel their pastors aren't political enough or are too political. Pastors walk a fine line, always in the shadow of either getting fired or losing members. We get so caught up in what is seen, which is temporary, that we forget to pay attention to what is unseen, which is eternal. Yes, the Gospel does provide a moral architecture that guides us in this temporal world, but telling people how to vote on gender identity, or equating Christianity with 'patriotism,' or concluding that a person's believing Christian evangelical theology means they must be MAGA —intolerance cuts both ways — is not Gospel. (EW Piper) Advertisement First question: Who is 'we' in the headline 'Do we really want churches to become more political?' (TerwilligerBuntsOne) Churches can become political when they pay taxes like you and me. (tipinnh) There are three religious truths: 1) Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. 2) Protestants do not recognize the pope as the leader of the Christian faith. 3) Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters. — Author Unknown (pgerlings)
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
School vouchers: an issue that unites and divides
Advertisement The issue of school vouchers is primarily one of wealthy people who want the government to bear the cost for their private school tuition vs. most Americans, who know that this policy choice is only going to worsen the education they depend on. This oligarchic reality is true in every state, regardless of which party is in charge of that state. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Ellery Klein Medford GOP's nod to the private market would undermine our sense of community Nothing binds a community together more than public schools. In our increasingly divided country this institution remains essential. Countless families with children know the experience of school involvement leading to a familiarity with neighbors and the community. Parents' interest in ensuring the best for their children prompts their participation in school affairs and municipal government. Advertisement Raising a family encourages all of us to care about what is going on where we live. In once again promoting the private market approach of school vouchers, Republicans undermine our public voice and sense of community. They wish for a diminished public sphere replaced by the marketplace. Expanding the use of publicly funded vouchers to support private elementary and secondary education would not only seriously harm our public schools. It would also further widen our national divisions. Perry Cottrelle Malden My taxes shouldn't go toward promoting another parent's values Jim Stergios, executive director of Pioneer Institute, argues for using public funds for private education ( Stergios cites Kendra Espinoza, the lead plaintiff in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and a single mother, who explained in a 2020 Reuters interview, 'At the public school, there's a lot of disrespect and not enough of those values that I wanted them to learn.' I'm a childless atheist who eagerly supports public schools. Public secular education serves me by giving my fellow citizens the intellectual tools to meaningfully participate in our democracy. It's not my responsibility to promote parents' values. I don't want to contribute to parochial schools that promote parochial values or viewpoints. Citizens who are antiabortion don't want a dime of their tax money to support abortion, even indirectly. I feel the same way about spreading religious myths of any stripe. Parents, pass on your values as you see fit, but don't insist I have to pay for it. Advertisement Jim Mesthene Waltham
