Mass. budget debate points to a subtle but seismic shift on Beacon Hill
But if you were paying attention to Beacon Hill this week, you saw one in real-time and in the most unexpected and resolutely anodyne of places: The start of the Massachusetts Senate's annual budget debate.
Ready? Here it is, courtesy of Senate Committee on Ways and Means Chairperson Michael Rodrigues, D-1st Bristol/Plymouth.
'Over the course of the last few months, we have witnessed firsthand how our federal partners have unleashed unprecedented amounts of uncertainty, unpredictability and volatility,' the South Coast lawmaker said Monday as the majority-Democrat chamber started debate on a $61.3 billion spending plan for the new fiscal year that starts July 1.
'In past turbulent times, the question we asked ourselves was, 'How much help can we expect from our friends in D.C.?' Yet today, we find ourselves in the unique position of asking, 'How much is D.C. going to hurt us today?'' Rodriques mused, according to State House News Service.
The sentiment isn't a new one. Elected and community leaders across the Bay State have been sounding the alarm for months about the impact that diminished federal funding will have on the state's bottom line.
And a word about process: The Senate is expected to spend most of the week wading through more than 1,000 amendments to the budget proposal. Senators have been advised of a 'potential' formal session on Thursday as well, the wire service reported
As a refresher, Massachusetts gets nearly $23 billion in funding from Washington every year, with around $16 billion of it pumped into the state's operating budget, data show.
But spending cuts across the federal government that already have taken place, and those being eyed by Republicans on Capitol Hill — including Medicaid and hunger assistance — are expected to throw states' economies into disarray.
And that doesn't even count the hit that nonprofits and colleges and universities, all of them economic players, are taking this year.
Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, who will have a big say in the final shape of the spending plan that hits her desk, already has announced an executive branch hiring freeze because of the shaky funding picture.
Read More: These key public services won't be hit by the state's hiring freeze, Mass. Gov. Healey says
One more big tell about the changed political and economic topography?
While there's not exactly emphatic Republican agreement about the Democrats' spending priorities, there's a clear-eyed recognition that the state is facing seismic forces this year that it has not seen before.
Here's Senate Minority Leader Bruce E. Tarr, R-1st Essex/Middlesex:
'I dare say that while every budget is important and while every budget is a challenge, the consequences of our decisions with this budget are perhaps more intense than some of the recent budgets that we've dealt with,' Tarr said Monday during the customary GOP response.
The Gloucester lawmaker noted that he and his colleagues had faced uncertain times before, notably during the COVID-19 pandemic, State House News Service reported.
But, he allowed, 'we always found a way to move forward to address the uncertainty and those difficult economic times.'
That makes it 'imperative that we do so once again,' and while Rodriques pointed to one 'element of uncertainty, there is another element. And that other element deals with the issue of what could be an economic downturn that could have significant consequences for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.'
Tarr isn't the only one thinking that way. Jim Rooney, the president and CEO of the influential Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, had the same issues on his mind recently.
Massachusetts already was struggling with economic competitiveness and job creation issues before Trump returned to office in January, Rooney told WBZ-TV's 'Keller @Large' program last weekend.
'Now you layer on job-impacting types of federal policies like tariffs, like research funding, like immigration and that was going to be tough anyway,' Rooney said.
'And ... if you look at where our jobs are, [with] high concentrations in life sciences and medicine ... this is right in the gut of the Massachusetts economy,' he continued.
Those concerns are further underlined by new research by Mark Williams, a master lecturer in finance at Boston University, concluding that the Republican White House's policies could result in billions of dollars in lost revenue and tens of thousands of job losses as early as next year.
That's because, compared to other states, the Bay State's economy 'disproportionately' depends on such sectors as life sciences, higher education, trade and tourism, Williams said. All of those already have been — or will be hit — by Trump's economic policies.
Which brings us back to Rodriques and the admittedly limited palette that he and his fellow lawmakers, along with Healey, have to work with this budget season.
The Senate's top budget-writer has ruled out dipping into the state's Rainy Day Fund to backfill any lost federal money. Healey has repeatedly said the state doesn't have the cash to do it on its own.
And over in the House, which passed its $61.4 billion budget proposal earlier this month, House Committee on Ways and Means Chairperson Aaron Michlewitz, D-3rd Suffolk, has been similarly circumspect.
The fiscal picture could be clarified as the June 30 deadline to approve a new spending plan approaches — and as the two chambers reconcile the differences between the $62 billion budget plan backed by Healey and their respective proposals. Spending cuts appear to be decidedly off the table.
Right now, the only certain thing is the budget deadline, and lawmakers routinely blow through that. So it's good to know we can count on at least one thing.
From Baker to Ballot: Republican Mike Kennealy makes his pitch for governor | Bay State Briefing
Rümeysa Öztürk chose grace over bitterness. What we can learn | John L. Micek
'What About Us?': Native leaders say time's up on broken promises | John L. Micek
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
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Would Newsom's CA redistricting effort affect SLO County? See the leaked maps
California Gov. Gavin Newsom launched an effort Friday to thwart Republican gerrymandering in Texas by redrawing California's own voting districts to favor Democratic congressional candidates in certain districts for the next three election cycles — but San Luis Obispo County's district lines would not change. The proposed maps were designed to flip five currently Republican seats in the northeastern corner of California, along the eastern state border from Plumas National Forest past Death Valley, in San Diego and in and around Los Angeles. According to leaked drafts of the new maps, neither of SLO County's congressional districts, safely held by Democrats, would be substantially affected. Typically, redistricting in California happens at the turn of the decade in concert with the census and is led by an independent citizens commission made up of Republicans, Democrats and non-party-affiliated members. The next regular redistricting is expected in 2030. But Newsom's mid-decade push to redraw congressional district lines, led by lawmakers, is not typical. It is a direct challenge to Texas' attempt, instigated by the Trump administration, to add as many as five GOP seats to the U.S. House of Representatives — in which Republicans have a razor-thin advantage — ahead of the midterm elections to preserve the Republican advantage for the second half of Trump's term. California's gerrymandered maps would aim to flip the same number of seats blue, zeroing out the net balance of seat changes in 2026. 'Texas is taking away the voice of the people,' Assemblymember Dawn Addis, who represents SLO County in the Legislature, told The Tribune. 'California is giving it back.' To Addis, the redistricting effort is about enfranchising California's minority voting communities while Texas disenfranchises its own with what she called an 'outright attack on underrepresented communities.' Unlike Texas, California's redistricting process would leave the decision up to the voters. Upon returning from summer break next week, the Legislature will vote on three bills in a legislative package dubbed the Election Rigging Response Act. to introduce the new maps, set a special election for Nov. 4 to vote on their adoption, and proposed a budget package to fund the special election. The package also includes a trigger clause that would cause the new district lines to go into effect only if Texas or other states follow through on redrawing their districts in favor of Republican voters. If passed, the maps would take effect for the next three elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030. California would return to its regular independent redistricting procedure for 2032. 'We're in a position where we have to fight,' Addis said. SLO County not impacted by redistricting SLO County is split between two congressional districts — Districts 24 and 19, represented by Democrats Salud Carbajal and Jimmy Panetta, respectively. According to draft versions of the redistricted maps leaked to KCRA 3 on Friday afternoon ahead of the official release, SLO County would remain in its two current Central Coast congressional districts. It appears the borders of the two districts would be tweaked slightly, but not in SLO County. According to data from Redistricting Partners, which created the maps working with California Democrats, the number of potential voters would shift slightly under the new maps, with District 24 going from 539,100 to 540,894 and District 19 going from 535,195 to 532,407. Redistricting Partners is the same firm that previously drew SLO County's Board of Supervisors district lines. 'Trump and the Republicans know their policies, such as the tariff-taxes, Big Beautiful Bill and immigration raids, are unpopular, so they are trying to steal enough congressional seats to stay in power,' Carbajal told The Tribune in a statement, 'I fully support Gov. Newsom's efforts to protect our democracy, and the will of the American people, from this unprecedented power grab.' Addis said local voters should think beyond SLO County when casting their vote in November. 'I can't emphasize how important this special election is,' she said. 'We're willing to stand up for the whole nation and defend democracy.' Even though the Election Rigging Response Act breaks procedure and gerrymanders California in favor of Democrats, Addis applauded the Legislature for taking a democratic approach to the unusual redistricting process, allowing voters to have the final say. 'We're completely committed to do it in a transparent way, unlike Texas,' she said, adding that 'we'd prefer to wait for redistricting,' in 2030. The state-led redistricting comes after SLO County created its own independent redistricting committee in September in reaction to the 2021 Board of Supervisors approving a radically redrawn district map that favored Republicans, according to a Tribune analysis. 'SLO County has really stood up for voter rights,' she said. 'The same thing (happened) where the Republicans in SLO County tried to disenfranchise voters through gerrymandering.' What California congressional districts would change? The leaked drafts confirmed that Democrats are targeting five Republican districts in the nothern reaches of the state, the Central Valley and Southern California, while hoping to shore up other competitive districts to make them easier for party candidates to win. The California Republicans whose districts Democrats are targeting are Reps. Kevin Kiley, David Valadao, Ken Calvert, Doug LaMalfa and Darrell Issa. If successful, the effort would net Democrats 48 of the state's 52 congressional seats; the party currently controls 43. Other districts that Democrats have narrowly won would also be consolidated into friendlier terrain. Political data scientist Paul Mitchell, a redistricting veteran, drafted the maps. 'Our proposed map was created using traditional redistricting criteria, consistent with guidelines laid out by the California's Citizen Redistricting Commission,' according to a cover letter from Julie Merz of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee included with the map. 'It allows for more compact districts than in the current Commission-drawn map, keeps more communities and neighborhoods together, splits fewer cities, and makes minimal disruptions to the Commission-drawn map so as to impact as few residents as possible,' Merz wrote. 'This is a striking contrast from Texas' proposed gerrymander, which redrew all but one of their 38 congressional districts to minimize the state's growing minority voting strength.' The draft maps, which leaked online ahead of their official release Friday, would shrink most Republican districts. It would shift much of the state's northernmost region into the coastal 2nd Congressional District seat currently held by Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman while including parts of northern Marin and Sonoma counties. Kiley's district would also shrink and encompass part of the greater Sacramento area, shift the bulk of voters to Republican Rep. Tom McClintock's district and remove a broad section of the eastern Sierra Nevada. Valadao's district would also shrink, as would that of Issa, who trumped his Democratic opponent in 2024 by almost 19 points to be reelected to his San Diego-area seat. According to a chart that leaked Thursday, all of those districts would shift from being 'safely' Republican to either lean Democrat, or be considered safe for any Democratic candidate if voters approve them in November. Calvert and Issa currently represent parts of Riverside and San Diego counties, and Valadao represents a Central Valley district. LaMalfa currently represents much of the north from Yuba City to the Oregon border. Kiley, arguably Newsom's arch rival within the state, currently represents much of the northern Sacramento suburbs, northern Sierra Nevada, and the Nevada border down to Death Valley. Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Schwarzenegger taunts Newsom with message targeting Dem redistricting push
Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pumping up for a new fight. The longtime Hollywood action star, the last Republican governor in Democrat-dominated California, says he's mobilizing to oppose the push by current Gov. Gavin Newsom to temporarily scrap the state's nonpartisan redistricting commission. 'I'm getting ready for the gerrymandering battle,' Schwarzenegger wrote in a social media post Friday, which included a photo of the former professional bodybuilding champion lifting weights. Schwarzenegger, who rose to worldwide fame as the star of the film 'The Terminator' four decades ago, wore a T-shirt in the photo that said 'terminate gerrymandering.' The social media post by Schwarzenegger comes as Democratic leaders in the Democrat- dominated California legislature are moving forward with new proposed congressional district maps that would create up to five more blue-leaning US House seats in the nation's most populous state. Newsom on Thursday teamed up in Los Angeles with congressional Democrats and legislative leaders in the heavily blue state to unveil their redistricting playbook. 4 Arnold Schwarzenegger wears a 'F*** The Politicians. Terminate Gerrymandering' shirt while working out. Arnold Schwarzenegger/X Newsom and the Democrats are aiming to counter the ongoing effort by President Donald Trump and Republicans to create up to five GOP-friendly congressional districts in red state Texas at the expense of Democrat-controlled seats. 'Today is liberation day in the state of California,' Newsom said. 'Donald Trump, you have poked the bear, and we will punch back.' Newsom vowed to 'meet fire with fire' with his push for a rare — but not unheard of — mid-decade redistricting. 4 California Gov. Gavin Newsom embraces former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at a news conference in Los Angeles, Calif. on March 22, 2024. Los Angeles Times via Getty Imag The Republican push in Texas, which comes at Trump's urging, is part of a broader effort by the GOP across the country to pad its razor-thin House majority to keep control of the chamber in the 2026 midterms, when the party in power traditionally faces political headwinds and loses seats. Trump and his political team are aiming to prevent what happened during his first term in the White House, when Democrats stormed back to grab the House majority in the 2018 midterms. While the Republican push in Texas to upend the current congressional maps doesn't face constitutional constraints, Newsom's path in California is much more complicated. The governor is pushing to hold a special election this year to get voter approval to undo the constitutional amendments that created the nonpartisan redistricting commission. A two-thirds majority vote in the Democrat-dominated California legislature as early as next week would be needed to hold the referendum. Democratic Party leaders are confident they'll have the votes to push the constitutional amendment and the new proposed congressional maps through the legislature. 'Here we are in open and plain sight before one vote is cast in the 2026 midterm election, and here [Trump] is once again trying to rig the system,' Newsom charged. Newsom said his plan is 'not complicated. We're doing this in reaction to a president of the United States that called a sitting governor in the state of Texas and said, 'Find me five seats.' We're doing it in reaction to that act.' 4 The proposed Congressional district map of California. California State Assembly The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) said 'Newsom's made it clear: he'll shred California's Constitution and trample over democracy — running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought, and power is the only priority.' But Newsom defended his actions, saying 'we're working through a very transparent, temporary and public process. We're putting the maps on the ballot and putting the power to the people.' Thursday's appearance by Newsom, considered a likely contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, also served as a fundraising kickoff to raise massive amounts of campaign cash needed to sell the redistricting push statewide in California. The nonpartisan redistricting commission, created over 15 years ago, remains popular among most Californians, according to public opinion polling. That's why Newsom and California Democratic lawmakers are promising not to scrap the commission entirely, but rather replace it temporarily by the legislature for the next three election cycles. 'We will affirm our commitment to the state independent redistricting after the 2030 census, but we are asking the voters for their consent to do midterm redistricting,' Newsom said. Their efforts are opposed by a number of people supportive of the nonpartisan commission. 4 Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a rally about redistricting at the Democracy Center, Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles on Aug. 14, 2025. Getty Images Among the most visible members is likely to be Schwarzenegger. 'He calls gerrymandering evil, and he means that. He thinks it's truly evil for politicians to take power from people,' Schwarzenegger spokesperson Daniel Ketchell told Politico earlier this month. 'He's opposed to what Texas is doing, and he's opposed to the idea that California would race to the bottom to do the same thing.' Schwarzenegger, during his tenure as governor, had a starring role in the passage of constitutional amendments in California in 2008 and 2010 that took the power to draw state legislative and congressional districts away from politicians and placed it in the hands of an independent commission. 'Most people don't really think about an independent commission much, one way or another. And that's both an opportunity and a challenge for Newsom,' Jack Pitney, an American politics professor at California's Claremont McKenna College, told Fox News. 'It's going to take a lot of effort and money to energize Democrats and motivate them to show up at the polls,' Pitney said, adding Newsom's effort 'is all about motivating people who don't like Trump.' Fox News' Lee Ross contributed to this report
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Trump's aggressive push to take over DC policing may be a template for an approach in other cities
WASHINGTON — The left sees President Donald Trump's attempted takeover of Washington law enforcement as part of a multifront march to autocracy — 'vindictive authoritarian rule,' as one activist put it — and as an extraordinary thing to do in rather ordinary times on the streets of the capital. To the right, it's a bold move to fracture the crust of Democratic urban bureaucracy and make D.C. a better place to live. Where that debate settles — if it ever does — may determine whether Washington, a symbol for America in all its granite glory, history, achievement, inequality and dysfunction, becomes a model under the imprint of Trump for how cities are policed, cleaned up and run, or ruined. Under the name of his Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force, Trump put some 800 National Guard troops on Washington streets this past week, declaring at the outset, 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals.' Grunge was also on his mind. 'If our capital is dirty, our whole country is dirty, and they don't respect us.' He then upped the stakes by declaring federal control of the district's police department and naming an emergency chief. That set off alarms and prompted local officials to sue to stop the effort. 'I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive,' Police Chief Pamela Smith said. On Friday, the Trump administration partially retreated from its effort to seize control of the Metropolitan Police Department when a judge, skeptical that the president had the authority to do what he tried to do, urged both sides to reach a compromise, which they did — at least for now. Trump's Justice Department agreed to leave Smith in control, while still intending to instruct her department on law enforcement practices. In a new memo, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the force to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law. In this heavily Democratic city, local officials and many citizens did not like the National Guard deployment. At the same time, they acknowledged the Republican president had the right to order it because of the federal government's unique powers in the district. But Trump's attempt to seize formal control of the police department, for the first time since D.C. gained a partial measure of autonomy in the Home Rule Act of 1973, was their red line. For sure, there have been times when the U.S. military has been deployed to American streets, but almost always in the face of a riot or a calamitous event like the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Trump's use of force was born of an emergency that he saw and city officials — and many others — did not. A stranger to nuance, Trump has used the language of emergency to justify much of what he's done: his deportations of foreigners, his tariffs, his short-term deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles, and now his aggressive intervention into Washington policing. Washington does have crime and endemic homelessness, like every city in the country. But there was nothing like an urban fire that the masses thought needed to be quelled. Violent crime is down , as it is in many U.S. cities. Washington is also a city about which most Americans feel ownership — or at least that they have a stake. More than 25 million of them visited in 2024, a record year, plus over 2 million people from abroad. It's where middle schoolers on field trips get to see what they learn about in class — and perhaps to dance to pop tunes with the man with the music player so often in front of the White House. Washington is part federal theme park, with its historic buildings and museums, and part downtown, where restaurants and lobbyists outnumber any corporate presence. Neighborhoods range from the places where Jeff Bezos set a record for a home purchase price to destitute streets in economically depressed areas that are also magnets for drugs and crime. In 1968, the capital was a city on fire with riots. Twenty years later, a murder spree and crack epidemic fed the sense of a place out of control. But over the last 30 years, the city's population and its collective wealth have swelled. Against that backdrop, Philadelphia's top prosecutor, District Attorney Larry Krasner , a Democrat, assailed Trump's moves in Washington. 'You're talking about an emergency, really?' Krasner said, as if speaking with the president. 'Or is it that you're talking about an emergency because you want to pretend everything is an emergency so that you can roll tanks?' In Washington, a coalition of activists called Not Above the Law denounced what they saw as just the latest step by Trump to seize levers of power he has no business grasping. 'The onslaught of lawlessness and autocratic activities has escalated,' said Lisa Gilbert, co-chair of the group and co-president of Public Citizen. 'The last two weeks should have crystallized for all Americans that Donald Trump will not stop until democracy is replaced by vindictive authoritarian rule.' Fifty miles northeast, in the nearest major city, Baltimore's Democratic mayor criticized what he saw as Trump's effort to distract the public from economic pain and 'America's falling standing in the world.' 'Every mayor and police chief in America works with our local federal agents to do great work — to go after gun traffickers, to go after violent organizations,' Brandon Scott said. 'How is taking them off of that job, sending them out to just patrol the street, making our country safer?' But the leader of the D.C. Police Union, Gregg Pemberton, endorsed Trump's intervention — while saying it should not become permanent. 'We stand with the president in recognizing that Washington, D.C., cannot continue on this trajectory,' Pemberton said. From his vantage point, 'Crime is out of control, and our officers are stretched beyond their limits.' The Home Rule Act lets a president invoke certain emergency powers over the police department for 30 days, after which Congress must decide whether to extend the period. Trump's attempt to use that provision stirred interest among some Republicans in Congress in giving him an even freer hand. Among them, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee drafted a resolution that would eliminate the time limit on federal control. This, he told Fox News Digital, would 'give the president all the time and authority he needs to crush lawlessness, restore order, and reclaim our capital once and for all.' Which raises a question that Trump has robustly hinted at and others are wondering, too: If there is success in the district — at least, success in the president's eyes — what might that mean for other American cities he thinks need to be fixed? Where does — where could — the federal government go next? ___ Associated Press writer Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, contributed to this report.
