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
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Once again, Trump sends soldiers to do police officers' jobs
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's clear that he intends to keep sending troops into American cities. But Americans can't let that become the new normal. Advertisement There ought to be bipartisan pushback. After all, Republicans used to be the first to object to federal interference in local affairs. Indeed, it should not have to be said how dangerous this is: Federalized police takeovers of cities are hallmarks of autocracies. When leaders cannot govern by democratic means, they turn to force to bend citizens to their will. And, as is often the case in backsliding democracies, they falsely claim to be acting for people's own good. Advertisement 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs, and homeless people, and we're not going to let it happen anymore,' Trump said at His words are not backed up by data. Among other things, he cited 2023 crime statistics from the city, which did experience a post-pandemic crime surge. But since then, violent crime has plummeted in the city. Even if the district really were the dystopian hellscape Trump describes, though, it is wrong to think the military could fix it. Crime is a complicated, multifaceted problem, not something that can be solved with Humvees. Trump, though, was not deterred by facts. 'I'm officially invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, you know what that is, and placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control,' Trump said. Trump's announced plan is, at least in part, of debatable legality. Because of D.C.'s unique status as the nation's capital, the president and Congress do have powers there that they lack elsewhere. Still, the law Trump cited does not allow the president to commandeer local law enforcement in Washington, as he seemed to imply. The Home Rule Act, which established D.C.'s local government, gives the president no local law enforcement powers at all, meaning he cannot direct local police to conduct patrols, detain people, or arrest them. What the law does allow is for the president to direct the local police, under Section 740, if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for federal purposes .' The law also caps the amount of time such emergency declaration can last to 48 hours, which can be extended to 30 days if Congress is properly notified of the action. Advertisement 'In other words,' borrow the [Washington police] for his own priorities; but he can't control how they discharge their other duties.' This is something Trump could have done, for example, on Jan. 6, 2021 during the violent siege of the US Capitol building to allow seamless coordination of local and federal law enforcement to assist Capitol Police in stemming the violence. But in that emergency, he chose not to. Something else the president has done in D.C. this week that he didn't do during the Jan. 6 attack is to mobilize the D.C. National Guard. Unlike in states, where governors direct the National Guard, the D.C. National Guard reports directly to the president, who reportedly deployed The federal government also has some powers to deploy agents from other agencies, such as the US Park Police, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE, but the law limits some of those agency's powers based on jurisdiction and subject matter. For example, ICE agents can only conduct civil immigration enforcement, they cannot conduct an arrest for suspected carjacking or any other local criminal action, and Park Police only have jurisdiction on federal land. Whether all law enforcement officials are staying within legal and constitutional lines is yet to be determined. In California, where a trial is underway to determine if the administration violated the law with its deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles, it will take months if not years for the matter to make its way through the courts. The same will be true with the latest gambit in D.C. Advertisement But in the meantime, the president and other administration officials have the The president is taking advantage of the fact that he can implement legally and constitutionally dubious actions before courts have time to vet and stop them. But leaders, including Republicans who have long called for limited government, should decry this and do what they can to stop this autocratic move. Whether it is part of a cynical play to the the GOP's base ahead of midterm elections, or part of a deeper plan, as outlined by the White House earlier this year to ' Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Who really suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome?
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Two decades on, Krauthammer's coinage has been appropriated, rebranded, and defined down — way down. 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is now flung at anyone who objects to President Trump's conduct or opposes his policies. The term is no longer reserved for over-the-top expressions of revulsion — like actor Robert De Niro using a televised appearance at the Tony Awards to Advertisement No — today 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is used as an all-purpose put-down to deride any Trump critics, including those who stick to serious, fact-based analysis. I've lost count of all the times I've been Advertisement A woman seen at the Iowa State Fairgrounds on July 3, when President Trump was speaking there. Scott Olson/Getty The word 'syndrome' notwithstanding, this is merely political trash talk, popularized by Trump and his allies as a way to wave off criticism without having to engage it. Instead of refuting arguments or defending policy, the magic letters 'TDS' turn disagreement into proof of mental defect. Yet if 'derangement' means the loss of proportion and judgment Krauthammer was getting at, then the most severe cases aren't among Trump's critics. They're in the ranks of his most ardent loyalists. The real Trump Derangement Syndrome shows up in three telltale symptoms. First is the cult-like worship that treats Trump as infallible — his acolytes profess adoration not only for what he does, but for whatever could flow from him. Emblematic of that mindset are the Advertisement Second is the abandonment of principles that once seemed non-negotiable. Conservatives and Republicans who used to champion free trade A man with a MAGA tattoo on his stomach attended a rally at Macomb Community College in Warren, Mich., to mark President Trump's 100th day in office on April 29. EMILY ELCONIN/NYT Third is the unsettling delight so many supporters take in Trump's most outrageous behavior — a kind of giddy worship that equates offensiveness with authenticity. Such brazenness has been a hallmark of his political career — from mocking John McCain's Vietnam War heroism to charging undocumented immigrants with ' Advertisement Meanwhile, they reflexively use 'TDS!' as a go-to put-down for anything from mild disagreement to serious moral critique, framing opposition not as argument but as pathology — an easy, cheap discredit. Yes, plenty of Trump-haters go overboard — but in MAGA circles, the 'TDS' tag is sprayed far wider, hitting thoughtful critics just as readily as the genuinely unhinged. What is truly alarming is how some have sought to legalize that insult by casting dissent as disease. In Minnesota this spring, five Republican senators proposed a bill that would Krauthammer's original point in 2003 was that derangement is the breakdown of proportion and prudence. That breakdown isn't found among critics who quote Trump accurately and challenge his claims. The most alarming political derangement today affects those who cannot conceive that there are legitimate reasons to be appalled by the president, and so explain anti-Trump dissent as a sign of mental weakness. If reason is the measure, then those who shout 'TDS!' the loudest are the ones most in need of treatment. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Same-sex marriage is no threat to religious liberty
This is the ridiculous accusation being made by Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk. In 2015, she was briefly jailed for contempt of court after she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as required by law. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up She is asking the Supreme Court, with a more staunchly conservative bench than the one that codified same-sex marriage, to rule that federally recognized unions between two men or two women threaten 'her sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage,' according to her lawyers. Advertisement Davis's challenge to Obergefell stems from her appeal of a $100,000 jury verdict plus $260,000 for attorney fees that she was ordered to pay to the gay couple to whom she denied a marriage license. The nine justices have not yet decided whether to review Davis's appeal. Davis is being represented by the Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group that specializes in religious liberty cases. In 2018, the group won a 7-2 Supreme Court decision that ruled in favor of a Advertisement In a statement, Mat Staver, the Liberty Counsel's founder and chairman, said the Davis case 'underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the wrongly decided Obergefell v. Hodges opinion because it threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman.' Davis herself has entered that sacred union four times with three men. For last year's 20th anniversary of the Goodridge decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas ticked off a list of other After Roe was outlawed, 'I remember thinking 'Oh my God, is it possible that all of the rights and privileges that we've won as a community, whether it's women's or LGBTQ rights, will be washed away in the same lifetime in which we won them?'' Julie Goodridge, one of the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case, told me. There's Advertisement But we're also witnessing the most tumultuous era in modern politics, when things we once believed impossible have now become as commonplace as they are alarming. The end of Roe proved that our civil rights are not sacrosanct. Opponents of reproductive rights chipped away at abortion access for decades until the political climate was primed to erase what had been considered settled law for nearly 50 years. So far, Trump hasn't mentioned Davis's appeal. That could change if the Supreme Court adds her case to its upcoming docket, but perhaps this White House may already be quietly tipping its hand. In 2022, Joe Biden signed into law the Respect for Marriage Act, which requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. But on the official White House website, instead of remarks from Biden officials about protecting same-sex marriage, there's now only a Here's hoping that a year from now, my friends, and every LGBTQ couple, will still have weddings and anniversaries to celebrate. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
