Facing economic uncertainty, Mass. lawmakers say they have agreement on state budget
Lawmakers plan to vote on the budget proposal Monday, they said, and send it to Governor Maura Healey. She will then have 10 days to review the bill. State law affords Healey the ability to veto specific items or sections, or return certain provisions with amendments.
In the meantime, state government won't shut down. Healey has put forward
The nearly $62 billion proposal that House and Senate leaders negotiated will be, by most accounts, the most important piece of legislation to pass on Beacon Hill this year. It dictates how an array of state and quasi-public agencies are funded, spreads millions of dollars in earmarks to towns, cities, and projects, and often carries weighty policy implications.
Advertisement
The proposals represent a roughly 6 percent increase in state spending over the version Healey signed last summer.
Both versions of the budget, however, had spending differences.
The business-backed non-profit also said that the revenue estimates lawmakers used to build their budget may be overly generous, arguing that tax revenue may come in at least $600 million below what state officials' projected for the July through June 2026 fiscal year based on current trends.
And that $600 million downgrade, MTF officials said, doesn't even account for potential impacts of the Trump administration's trade policies or the chance of an economic downturn. Accounting for those, the foundation
Just Friday, the Healey administration announced that the Trump administration cut more than $45 million in funding for to land conservation efforts across state, and cancelled a $25 million grant to Mass Audubon to protect forests and wetlands along the Connecticut River.
The state has so far been
Advertisement
Whether a recession may hit the state or the country is also unclear. But budget-watchers have been warning lawmakers for months that they
The House and Senate's roughly $61.5 billion proposals both seek to spend about $500 million less than what
The fate of several major policy initiatives also hangs in the balance.
The Senate, for example, attached a rider to its budget plan that would give local officials, not lawmakers on Beacon Hill, the power to
For decades, local officials have needed legislative approval to issue liquor licenses to restaurants and other businesses beyond a certain cap set in law, forcing them to navigate Beacon Hill's sluggish
The Senate-passed proposal, which also sought to bar the transfer of liquor licenses between establishments, offered a potential sea change. It also faced immediate resistance in the House, where Majority Leader Michael Moran compared ceding legislative approval over the licenses to 'political recklessness.'
The Senate's budget also sought to make the state's regional transit authorities fare-free, tucking in language banning them from charging passengers for rides while dedicating $40 million in revenue from the state's surtax on wealthy residents to cover the costs. (The language was not in the House's version.)
Advertisement
The House, meanwhile, moved to
Both chambers included proposals they said would help protect renters from paying hefty broker's fees, charges that typically amount to a month's rent and which renters in virtually every other major American urban center
But plans had stark differences. The Senate language put the onus of paying a fee on whoever 'originally engaged and entered into a contract' with a broker, which is typically a landlord.
The House's version left open the possibility of renters covering the fee if they 'initiated contact' with the broker, which include by simply responding to an apartment listing.
Samantha J. Gross can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Sierra Club's Board Fires Ben Jealous, the Group's Executive Director
The Sierra Club's board of directors voted unanimously on Monday to fire Ben Jealous, its executive director, after conducting 'an extensive evaluation of his conduct.' Mr. Jealous has been on leave for the last month following a rocky tenure at the Sierra Club, one of the oldest nonprofit environmental groups in the country. He oversaw several rounds of layoffs and clashed with employee groups, which in recent months have raised concerns about his ability to lead the organization effectively through a second Trump term. The Sierra Club declined to offer details about the events that led to his removal. 'The Sierra Club will continue to look into concerns raised regarding misconduct irrespective of who they are raised against in furtherance of our policies, the law and our mission,' Jonathon Berman, chief communications officer, said in a statement. Mr. Jealous did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Loren Blackford, a longtime Sierra Club leader, took over Mr. Jealous's role last month and will continue to lead the organization as it searches for a permanent replacement. Founded in 1892, the Sierra Club counts local chapters in every state. It has more than 800 staff members and typically brings in more than $100 million in revenue annually. The nonprofit organization has faced funding shortfalls in recent years. An increase in donations to the Sierra Club during President Trump's first term ran dry, and Mr. Trump's re-election has not lead to a similar influx of cash. Mr. Jealous was the first person of color to lead the Sierra Club. He was formerly the chief executive of the N.A.A.C.P. and was the Democratic nominee for governor of Maryland in 2018. Mr. Jealous's leave came after employee groups and local Sierra Club chapters expressed concerns with his leadership. Local group leaders in Oregon and Missouri requested that the board hold a vote of no confidence. Oregon chapter leaders took issue with Mr. Jealous' hiring of a senior staff member who was registered as a lobbyist for the cryptocurrency firm while he worked for the Sierra Club, among other things. In a statement, Erica Dodt, president of the Progressive Workers Union, which represents Sierra Club employees, said, 'We hope that his departure will open the door for a stronger relationship between workers and management, and allow the Sierra Club to better focus our efforts on fighting the Trump administration and protecting the environment.'
Politico
a few seconds ago
- Politico
Trump officials cast a wider net for Powell replacement at Fed
The list suggests officials are aiming to present President Donald Trump with a diverse set of options to replace Powell, whom Trump has relentlessly pressed to lower interest rates, and they aren't ruling out picking a Fed insider for the job. The selection process is especially challenging because whoever fills the seat will have to balance the central bank's inflation-fighting credibility with Trump's expectation that his calls for lower rates will be taken into consideration. The new chair will also lead an institution with thousands of employees tasked with not only setting interest rates, but also regulating banks and overseeing the payments system. Jefferson, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, has been a less visible presence than other recent vice chairs at the Fed but has consistently garnered bipartisan support. He was confirmed by the Senate as the central bank's No. 2 in an 88-10 vote. Many of the people under consideration have publicly said the Fed should cut borrowing costs — Waller and Bowman, both Trump appointees, dissented from a decision to hold rates steady last month — but have also emphasized the importance of the institution's insulation from short-term politics. Bullard said on CNBC on Tuesday that he would accept the job 'if we set it up for success, if we protect the value of the dollar, [to] be the reserve currency — that'll give us lower interest rates over time, if we aim for low and stable inflation, and if we can respect the independence of the institution under the Federal Reserve Act.' Bullard and Sumerlin's candidacies were first reported by the Wall Street Journal, and the new internal Fed candidates were earlier reported by Bloomberg News. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed in a CNBC interview last week that a formal process for choosing Powell's successor has kicked off but did not a provide a timeline for when the choice might be made. In the meantime, Trump has nominated his chief economist, Stephen Miran, to an open position on the Fed, though the term for that slot ends in January. Miran has argued that the central bank should be subject to more political control.
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Social Security Warning Issued by Solicitor General
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Department of Justice has warned that overturning tariffs imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) would risk a "1929-style" crisis that could endanger the country's social welfare programs. "In such a scenario, people would be forced from their homes, millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard-working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened," wrote the U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in a letter submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday. Why It Matters The federal appellate court is soon set to decide whether to uphold the Court of International Trade's (CIT) May ruling that President Donald Trump overstepped his executive authority when imposing the majority of his tariffs. While this order invalidating Trump's actions, and another order from the District Court for the District of Columbia, have been temporarily stayed, the outcome of the legal battle, which Trump has called "America's big case," could hold wide-reaching implications for the president's trade agenda and the economy as a whole. What To Know The IEEPA is a federal law granting the president the power to regulate commerce to address "an unusual and extraordinary threat" to the United States during national emergencies. In the case of Trump, persistent trade deficits and fentanyl smuggling are among the emergencies invoked for his tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, as well as the "reciprocal" duties placed on dozens of America's trading partners. "The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the three-judge panel of the CIT wrote in its May ruling. White House officials accused the CIT of mounting a "judicial coup," and immediately appealed the decision. The federal appeals court granted the White House a stay on May 29. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on February 26, 2025. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on February 26, 2025. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images The court heard oral arguments in the case earlier this month, and Reuters reports that the 11-judge panel was skeptical about the administration's rationale for using the 1977 law to justify the tariffs. Since late May, the Trump administration has struck deals with a handful of trading partners hoping to bring down their tariff rates. These include agreements with the European Union, Japan and South Korea, and involve investment commitments together totaling well over $1 trillion. In Monday's supplemental letter, rather than the potential legality of the CIT's ruling and the invocation of the IEEPA, the DOJ argued that overturning tariffs would jeopardize these deals and investments. The latter are not direct payments to the U.S., but rather financing for private-sector projects. However, Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said: "The President believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin." "These deals for trillions of dollars have been reached, and other countries have committed to pay massive sums of money," they added. "If the United States were forced to unwind these historic agreements, the President believes that a forced dissolution of the agreements could lead to a 1929-style result." The argument echoes those recently made by Trump over the "big case." "If a Radical Left Court ruled against us at this late date, in an attempt to bring down or disturb the largest amount of money, wealth creation and influence the U.S.A. has ever seen, it would be impossible to ever recover, or pay back, these massive sums of money and honor," the president posted on Truth Social last week. What People Are Saying Solicitor General D. John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, in Monday's letter, wrote: "There is no substitute for the tariffs and deals that President Trump has made. One year ago, the United States was a dead country, and now, because of the trillions of dollars being paid by countries that have so badly abused us, America is a strong, financially viable, and respected country again. If the United States were forced to pay back the trillions of dollars committed to us, America could go from strength to failure the moment such an incorrect decision took effect." Scott Lincicome, economist at the Cato Institute, posted on X in response to the letter: "This is a letter signed by the US government's top lawyer and submitted today in federal court (in VOS Selections v Trump). I'm honestly struggling to believe it's real, but here we are." Economist David L. Ortega told Newsweek: "Ending the tariffs would not threaten Social Security or Medicare, which are funded through payroll taxes, not tariff receipts. Historically, high and sustained tariffs have posed greater economic risks than their removal. We saw this with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. In fact, lifting these tariffs would more likely lower costs for U.S. producers and consumers than trigger a 1929-style collapse." Robert B. Koopman, a senior lecturer in Politics, Governance and Economics at the American University, told Newsweek that the letter was "factually incorrect" and "a pure political statement with no factual basis in economic or political reality." "This set of arguments [regarding Social Security] has no basis in fact or considered economic analysis—pure hyperbole." He added: "More economists are worried that the current set of [trade] agreements are likely to lead to economic slowdown and that U.S. growth would be stronger without them. No one is actually predicting a 1929 result with them or without them." What Happens Next In the letter, Trump's lawyers said that there exist alternative "tariff authorities" beyond the IEEPA that the president could employ depending on the outcome of the case. However, they described them as "short-term" and "not nearly as powerful," and said employing these would "render America captive to the abuses that it has endured from far more aggressive countries." It is unclear when the appellate court will issue its final ruling, but the case could potentially progress to the Supreme Court regardless of the outcome. Last week, former House Speaker Paul Ryan said the court was "more than likely" to strike down the president's use of the IEEPA for the bulk of his tariffs.
