Mass. has an on-time(ish) state budget: 3 big things to know about the $61B plan
The Democratic governor gets 10 days to sign the document or kick it back for changes, thus deciding whether the Bay State gets Christmas in July with the budget for the new fiscal year that started at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday.
The spending plan, which does not raise any broad-based taxes, boosts state support for health care, education, and transportation, among other key sectors of state government.
It includes 'investments that better support Massachusetts students and families, that increase access to affordable health care, and that provide for a safer and more reliable public transportation system – all without raising taxes," House Speaker Ronald J. Mariano, D-3rd Norfolk, said in a statement.
With that in mind, here are three, key things to know about the budget now on Healey's desk:
The budget is premised on billions of dollars in federal funding that could well be upended by President Donald Trump's domestic policy mega-bill, which makes deep cuts to Medicaid, food assistance and other parts of the social safety net.
On Monday, as they raced through votes, legislative leaders said they wanted to beat Washington's express train by passing the state's budget before the 'Big Beautiful Bill' goes to Trump for his signature.
"With deep uncertainty on the horizon, both from an economic standpoint and from any actions Washington might take in the near future, we felt it was in the commonwealth's best interest to finish this budget in a quicker manner than has been the case in the past few years,' House Ways and Means Committee Chairperson Aaron Michlewitz, D-3rd Suffolk, said, according to State House News Service.
On the other side of the State House, Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairperson Michael Rodriques, D-1st Bristol/Plymouth, said the state already is feeling the pinch from Washington.
The Republican White House's trade war already has resulted in 'less-than-anticipated state tax revenue,' Rodrigues said, according to the wire service, while cuts to scientific research funding and 'the elimination of these thousands of jobs have caused a decrease in state income tax collections.'
Read more: Mass. 'Millionaire's Tax' is a year old. Where it's helped, hurt | Analysis
All in, the compromise spending plan uses $2.4 billion in 'Millionaire's Tax' revenue to underwrite spending on education and transportation programs — as mandated by state law.
The education-related programs getting a boost from that extra 4% tax on Bay State residents who earn more than $1 million a year include:
$360 million for the state's early education grant program, Commonwealth Cares for Children. Augmented by an extra $115 million from the state's Early Education and Care Operational Grant Fund, the program will see a total investment of $475 million.
$460 million for the state's Student Opportunity Act, which is intended to level the state's educational playing field.
$180 million for universal free school meals.
$120 million for the state's free community college program.
The transportation-related programs getting a boost include:
$470 million in direct support for the MBTA, which includes low-income fare relief, water ferry service and the MBTA Academy. The agency will see a total of $1 billion in state support this year, with the inclusion of $535 million in a recently approved supplemental budget for the Millionaire's Tax.
$120 million for Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) across the state. Together with resources from the General Fund, the bill provides a total of $214 million for the regional transit agencies.
$55 million in operating support for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
The spending plan also includes language that ends unpopular, renter-paid brokers' fees, usually the equivalent of one month's rent.
In Boston, where rental prices hover comfortably around $3,000, that can mean prospective tenants have to cough up as much as $9,000 or $10,000 to rent an apartment.
But to be clear, the fees aren't going away entirely: They're changing form. The language that lawmakers approved this week requires whoever first worked with the broker — whether the landlord or the renter — to cover the cost, The Boston Globe reported.
Tenant advocates have long railed against the fees. And when New York's City Council passed a law last year banning them, the Bay State's reform effort picked up a new head of steam.
Healey, who is running for reelection in 2026, has spoken publicly of her opposition to the fees and included a proposal to end them in the $62 billion budget outline she sent to lawmakers earlier this year.
Mass. senators blast Trump settlement with Paramount: 'Bribery in plain sight'
Trump's antisemitism probe mostly relies on Harvard's own report, Harvard claims
Trump threatens arrest of NYC mayoral candidate during visit to 'Alligator Alcatraz'
Here's how Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene described support for Trump's 'big beautiful bill'
Group behind MCAS ballot question broke campaign finance law, state says
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson turns independent streak loose on fellow justices
To hear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tell it, it's a 'perilous moment for our Constitution.' The Supreme Court's most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court's other liberal justices. Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump's sweeping agenda reached the court. It climaxed with her final dissent of decision season, when Jackson accused her fellow justices of helping Trump threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be 'hunkering down.' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' Her stark warning came as Trump's birthright citizenship order split the court on its 6-3 ideological lines, with all three Democratic appointed justices dissenting from the decision to limit nationwide injunctions. Jackson bounded farther than her two liberal colleagues, writing in a blistering solo critique that said the court was embracing Trump's apparent request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior.' The decision amounts to an 'existential threat to the rule of law,' she said. It wasn't the first time Jackson's fellow liberal justices left her out in the cold. She has been writing solo dissents since her first full term on the bench. Jackson did so again in another case last month when the court revived the energy industry's effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. Jackson accused her peers of ruling inequitably. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' Jackson wrote. 'Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent.' Rather than join Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that forewent such fiery language, Jackson chose to pen her own. The duo frequently agrees. They were on the same side in 94 percent of cases this term, according to data from SCOTUSblog, more than any other pair except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two leading conservatives. Sometimes Sotomayor signs on to Jackson's piercing dissents, including when she last month condemned the court's emergency order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency to access Americans' Social Security data. 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration, I would proceed without fear or favor,' Jackson wrote. But it appears there are rhetorical lines the most senior liberal justice won't cross. In another case, regarding disability claims, Sotomayor signed onto portions of Jackson's dissent but rejected a footnote in which Jackson slammed the majority's textualism as 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'Pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences,' the most junior justice wrote, refusing to remove the footnote from her dissent. Jackson's colleagues don't see it that way. 'It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can,' Chief Justice John Roberts told a crowd of lawyers at a judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his decisions are driven by the real-world consequences. 'If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it,' Roberts continued. 'But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.' Though Roberts wasn't referencing Jackson's recent dissents, her willingness to call out her peers hasn't gone unaddressed. Jackson's dissent in the birthright citizenship case earned a rare, merciless smackdown from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cosigned by the court's conservative majority. Replying to Jackson's remark that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' Barrett turned that script into her own punchline. 'That goes for judges too,' the most junior conservative justice clapped back. Deriding Jackson's argument as 'extreme,' Barrett said her dissenting opinion ran afoul of centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The piercing rebuke was a staunch departure from the usually restrained writing of the self-described 'one jalapeño gal.' That's compared to the five-jalapeño rhetoric of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett said, the late conservative icon for whom she clerked. On today's court, it is often Thomas who brings some of the most scathing critiques of Jackson, perhaps most notably when the two took diametrically opposite views of affirmative action two years ago. Page after page, Thomas ripped into Jackson's defense of race-conscious college admissions, accusing her of labeling 'all blacks as victims.' 'Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. It isn't Thomas's practice to announce his separate opinions from the bench, but that day, he said he felt compelled to do so. As he read it aloud from the bench for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom. Jackson's boldness comes across not only in the court's decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice. She embraces her openness. She told a crowd in May while accepting an award named after former President Truman that she liked to think it was because they both share the same trait: bravery. 'I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom, or the manner in which I address thorny issues in my legal writings,' Jackson said. 'Some have even called me fearless.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
To tame Washington, we need a DOGE 2.0 — but done right this time
Elon Musk has repeatedly achieved the impossible, but not even he and his Department of Government Efficiency could tame Washington, DC, and its massive federal bureaucracy. Yet there's still hope — and the need has never been more urgent. The Senate parliamentarian gutted major cost savings at the heart of the Republican reconciliation bill that President Donald Trump signed Friday, so he must resume DOGE efforts immediately. Advertisement In Silicon Valley terms, DOGE had product-market fit; it just didn't have the right tech stack. This time, the White House must get the architecture right. Step 1 is understanding what went wrong. DOGE's failures stemmed from three fundamental flaws that doomed the effort from the start. The first was structural. Don Devine, who ran the Office of Personnel Management for President Ronald Reagan, warned that creating a new agency to shrink government never works — it only causes confusion, diffusion of responsibility and more bureaucracy. Advertisement It also ignores that in Washington, the coin of the realm is power. DOGE was a new agency made up out of thin air with zero inherent legal authority — and Cabinet secretaries naturally bristled at an outside third party meddling in their agencies. They wanted to control the change, and they possessed the legal authority to do so. Indeed, as secretaries were confirmed, they moved quickly to throw off DOGE's yoke. Advertisement By late February, Musk faced a revolt as top officials countermanded DOGE's 'five weekly accomplishments' order. An 'explosive' Cabinet meeting in early March ended with Trump telling Musk to make changes with a scalpel, not a hatchet. Musk's second problem was a legal one. Private-sector experience can't prepare anyone for the labyrinth of administrative law that liberal activists use to stymie progress. DOGE lacked a dedicated legal team within the Justice Department focused solely on its policy reforms and preventing unforced errors. For example, DOGE lowered NIH's cap on allowable research overhead from 69% to 15%, explaining that private foundations allow for zero such funding — but it made the cap retroactive, jeopardizing the reform in court. Advertisement The third sin was flash. Even as DOGE's publicity invited legal challenges, it increased the pressure to meet publicly proclaimed, wildly optimistic targets. DOGE's $1 trillion in promised cuts will strain to hit $150 billion. We had a saying in the White House during Trump's first term, and it proved true here: Whales that surface get harpooned. Musk acknowledged as much on X last week, admitting that his attention-getting antics 'lacked empathy.' Fortunately, the source code exists to reengineer the DOGE mission with bold, swift, high-impact moves. The White House must implement three critical components to make DOGE 2.0 work. First, empower Cabinet control: The White House should give Cabinet secretaries direction, then let them make reforms themselves. Trump must give each Cabinet member mandatory workforce reduction goals, the same way tech sales teams have strict quotas. Faced with a requirement, for example, to trim 25% within six months, agency heads will snap into action — and will feel personal responsibility for performance. The federal government works best when it functions as designed, with the president — not a third party — telling his Cabinet what to do. Advertisement Second, the White House must assemble a dedicated legal defense team within the Justice Department focused solely on reform policies, and get each agency's general counsel on board with the effort. These lawyers will catch pitfalls early — and will go the extra mile to defend policies they helped write. For example, these lawyers must aggressively demand injunction bonds to rein in activists' district-court lawfare. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Advertisement When the Supreme Court ended universal injunctions last week, it left activist judges a 'significant loophole' in the class-action realm. DOJ lawyers should head this off by demanding that plaintiffs pay injunction bonds — upfront money to cover costs should they lose. Finally, DOGE 2.0 must execute in Stealth Mode. Follow the example of the Obama administration, which initially pursued amnesty for undocumented aliens by relaxing enforcement via phone calls, without making a public announcement. This made it much harder for Congress to learn what was happening — or to attack it in court. Advertisement The same quiet execution model applies here: Trump must pursue smart, quiet rollouts, not splashy launches. This was the model my former boss John McEntee used to reform personnel in Trump's first term. He used the authorities inherent in the White House to hold the Cabinet accountable, placed dedicated lawyers in key positions of authority and operated off-the-record. It was a successful model and should be deployed again. Advertisement Watching Musk leave Washington in frustration brings to mind the Roman historian Livy. As the Republic collapsed, he lamented: 'We can endure neither our vices nor the remedies needed to cure them.' America need not repeat Rome's fate — but only if we abandon failed approaches and embrace methods that actually work. The clock is ticking. Daniel Huff is a former White House lawyer in the Office of Presidential Personnel, and was a senior advisor to Project 2025.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The GOP's new bill is structural racism at its deadliest
Let's call the Republicans' so-called 'big beautiful bill' what it is: a legislative double-barreled shotgun aimed at the bodies of women, especially Southern women and women who are Black, brown and low-income. One barrel blasts Medicaid access. The other guts Planned Parenthood. The result? A deliberate attempt to kill reproductive freedom, strip women of their basic dignity and destroy what progress this region has made in maternal health outcomes. This isn't just policy. It's punishment. Cutting Medicaid while attacking Planned Parenthood isn't fiscal responsibility. It's a targeted cruelty that hurts women nationwide. But particularly for women in the South — where health systems are already under-resourced, rural clinics are vanishing and maternal mortality rates are similar to those in developing nations — it's nothing short of a death sentence for them and their babies. Let's talk facts. In 2023 in Mississippi, 57% of births were covered by Medicaid. In Louisiana, it was 64%. These aren't just statistics. These are lives — sisters, daughters, mothers and aunties — trying to survive a system designed to abandon them. In many rural ZIP codes, Planned Parenthood is the only accessible provider of cancer screenings, contraception, prenatal maternal care and postpartum care. Gutting its funding while simultaneously choking Medicaid is like setting fire to the only lifeboat in a flood. Let's be even more real: If you are a woman living in rural Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas or Alabama, this bill doesn't just inconvenience your access to care. It incinerates it. In rural Southern counties, hospitals have shut down their labor and delivery units in droves. Some counties don't have a single practicing OB-GYN. That's not a policy failure — that's an egregious policy choice being carried out with surgical precision. Imagine being six months pregnant, with no car and no public transit and with the closest provider two hours away — if it's even taking Medicaid patients. That's not health care. That's sanctioned neglect. Rural women — especially Black, Indigenous and Latina women — have been treated like afterthoughts for generations. But now, they're being treated like collateral damage in a culture war they didn't ask to be in. This is structural racism at is deadliest. If you're a lawmaker who's gutting access to women's reproductive while smiling for photo ops at church on Sunday, understand this: Every rural woman who dies from a preventable complication, every baby born undernourished because its mother couldn't access prenatal care, every ZIP code that loses a clinic because of these budget cuts is your fault. These attacks aren't incidental. They are ideological. They are part of a long game to control women's bodies while criminalizing their autonomy — especially in Black and brown communities. It's no coincidence that the same states eager to shred Medicaid expansion are the ones leading the charge against abortion rights, denying gender-affirming care to trans youths and standing opposed to the very notion of care as a public good. That's exactly why we released 'Shift the South,' groundbreaking report rooted in the lived realities and leadership of women and girls of color across the American South. It maps the merciless, maniacal movement to suppress autonomy, erase reproductive justice and underfund communities into silence. But it also lifts up the blueprint for transformation — investing in Southern women as agents of change, not casualties of policy. It's more than data — it's our declaration. And in the face of cruelty disguised as governance, we offer clarity, courage and counterstrategy. What's left when the clinic closes, the OB-GYN relocates and the Medicaid card is worthless? Silence. Suffering. Stillbirths. We've been here before. But we refuse to die quietly this time. At the Women's Foundation of the South, we refuse to act as if women are disposable. We know that maternal health, reproductive access and community wellness aren't luxuries — they are basic rights. This bill? It's not just bad policy. It's a betrayal. We will fight it — not just with data and dollars, but with the righteous rage of every grandmother who buried a daughter too soon, every mother who had to drive 200 miles for care and every young girl growing up in a state that sees her more as a womb than a whole human being. Republicans Thursday passed their bill that cuts Medicaid and defunds Planned Parenthood, and Friday, President Trump signed it into law. They should all be aware, though, of the rage they've unleashed in women — in the South and across the country — who don't plan to sit around silently and die. This article was originally published on
