Passing $61.4 bil budget, Senate plans to 'go forward and we'll see'
The Senate voted 38-2 on a roughly $61.4 billion spending plan for fiscal year 2026, capping off three days of deliberations in which senators tacked on tens of millions of additional dollars and wove in a handful of major policy riders like prescription drug price controls and liquor license reforms.
Republican Sens. Kelly Dooner of Taunton and Ryan Fattman of Sutton cast the two no votes.
Elected officials on Beacon Hill for months have been voicing concerns about potential budgetary upheaval as a result of federal funding rollbacks. Partway through the Senate's deliberations, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a package that would stanch hundreds of millions of dollars per year from flowing to various state programs.
Yet the Senate, like the House did last month, opted to proceed on a path that mostly mirrored the typical approach.
The final Senate budget increases state spending more than 6% over the version Gov. Maura Healey signed last summer, more than twice the rate of growth in the prior year. It's built on revenue — and federal reimbursement — forecasts crafted in January, before congressional Republicans made significant progress on their attempted spending cuts.
Senate budget chief Michael Rodrigues said at the outset of debate that lawmakers here would not 'freeze in place' waiting to see what happened in Washington, D.C. Soon after the U.S. House muscled through its sweeping package of tax cuts and spending reduction, Rodrigues said he had not yet 'had a chance to analyze it.'
After the final vote Thursday evening, Senate President Karen Spilka told the News Service she felt it made sense not to change the chamber's spending plan at this point because 'there's so much uncertainty.'
'It's impossible to build a budget on data and information that we have no idea what it is or what it means, because it's not stable — it changes by the hour, forget about day, week, month or more,' she said. 'We have to build a budget. What do we do, what do we cut without knowing what it is?'
The Senate added $81.1 million to the budget through amendments, mostly in the form of local earmarks, according to a Spilka aide. That pushed the final bottom line to about $61.4 billion, a bit lower than the House's nearly $61.5 billion plan.
Rodrigues said most of the growth in spending is on non-discretionary areas. Nearly two-thirds of the increase is attributable to higher caseloads at MassHealth, he said.
'There's really little discretion we have there, unless we want to take people off the rolls of MassHealth,' he told the News Service. 'We looked at, literally lifted every rock and looked under every mattress to try to find any sort of savings we could.'
Sen. Patricia Jehlen said Thursday that she views the Senate-approved spending plan as 'an austerity budget.'
'It does not meet the needs of our commonwealth; it is the best we can do with the resources we have,' she said.
Fiscal year 2026 begins July 1, but Massachusetts is unlikely to have a budget in place by then. House and Senate Democrats for years have felt comfortable stretching their private negotiations into the next fiscal year and keeping state government funded with holdover budgets, at times producing some of the latest annual budgets in the nation.
The last time a governor signed an annual state budget into law before the start of the fiscal year was in 2010.
Lawmakers on the budget conference committee will have a long list of points to deliberate, including the amount of one-time revenue redirection, how much money to provide to the MBTA as well as other transportation and education initiatives funded by the surtax, the specifics of regulating broker's fees, and whether to pause admissions reforms at vocational and technical schools.
The Senate tacked several substantial policy measures onto the conference committee agenda. One amendment the Senate adopted Wednesday would allow state health care regulators to cap prices for some medications, an idea that proponents say will help reduce quickly accelerating prescription drug spending but opponents warn will wreak economic harm.
Another provision adopted Thursday as part of a larger amendment bundle would overhaul the process by which municipalities petition for additional liquor licenses and give cities and towns greater control over the number of licenses available.
The Senate also added language calling on the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education by June 30, 2026 to recommend improvements to the foundation budget formula, which dictates aid that municipalities receive for K-12 education and how many of their own dollars communities need to contribute.
Despite the uncertainty fueled by Washington, D.C., Spilka and Rodrigues said they do not expect the imminent conference committee negotiations to play out much differently than usual.
Asked if she'd be comfortable with the panel slashing spending during its talks if Congress finalizes cuts, Spilka replied, 'We'll have to see how it goes.'
'Both branches have produced solid, responsible budgets, so I think from there they can go forward and we'll see,' she said.
'We'll deal with the facts presented to us, not with rumor or assumption,' Rodrigues added. 'It has to be the facts. The budget that we engrossed tonight is based upon the facts as we know it today.'
Senators pushed most of the amendments filed by Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr to the final day of deliberations. Tarr, as is often the case, deployed a series of props to argue in favor of some of his proposals. This year's theatrics included an aide wearing a 'Backpack of Budget Burden,' who attempted to climb a ladder on the Senate floor adorned with cardboard printouts declaring the rungs representative of health care costs and taxes.
After about an hour of debate, the Senate voted 34-5 to reject a Tarr measure that would have allowed cities and towns to petition the state for relief from the mandatory zoning reforms under the MBTA Communities Act if they could demonstrate an inability to fulfill drinking water, wastewater, transportation or environmental requirements as a result of compliance.
'We are not saying we believe there shouldn't be more housing in the commonwealth. We understand that we're at least 200,000 units short. We understand that we have to take bold and decisive action. We understand that our future hinges on being able to build that housing,' Tarr said. 'But the question is, how do we best do that, how do we do it with protecting due process, how do we do it so that we're not going out on a fool's errand and creating a zoning district where housing cannot be supported with the resources it needs?
Democrats argued that an appeal process would allow resisting communities to avoid zoning reforms intended to spur much-needed housing production.
[Colin A. Young contributed reporting.]
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
By sending troops to D.C. and eyeing Oakland, Trump continues targeting Black-led cities
When President Donald Trump announced Monday that he will deploy National Guard troops to the streets of Washington D.C. to combat crime, he named several other cities where he might take similar action. 'We have other cities also that are bad. Very bad,' Trump said during the White House news conference. 'You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore there.' Trump and other members of his administration, while often using false or misleading statistics, have cited rampant crime as the justification for deploying federalized troops within U.S. cities. But these cities share another commonality: They're led by Black mayors. Critics don't think that's a coincidence. Trump's focus on Washington D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, New York and Oakland is part of a larger pattern in which the president has suggested cities with majority-Black populations, or those led by Black leaders, are hotbeds of crime and corruption and symbols of American decline. 'I see this as a political dog whistle to his base, evoking long-running stereotypes that Black mayors cannot adequately govern or are soft on crime in their cities,' said Jordie Davies, a professor of political science at UC Irvine. 'Donald Trump is engaging in political theater so he can be seen as responding to the racist ideas that these cities are poorly run and overrun with crime — even as statistics demonstrate that violent crime in major U.S. cities, including D.C., is down this year.' Reports of violent crimes — homicides, robberies, assaults and sexual abuse —have seen steep declines over the last two years, the Washington Post reported. 'If he is going to start lying about major American cities to justify sending the military there, it is not surprising to me that he would pick cities with Black leadership and significant Black populations,' state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, said Monday. 'That is straight up Donald Trump's alley and straight out of his racist playbook.' Crime is also falling in Oakland, a trend that Mayor Barbara Lee cited Monday in arguing that Trump was less interested in facts than in scoring 'cheap political points by tearing down communities he doesn't understand.' Oakland experienced a 6% increase in reported violent crimes in 2024, but saw a decrease in homicides and property crimes, according to a Chronicle analysis. So far in 2025, violent crimes including homicides are down significantly in the city. 'We're making real progress on public safety in Oakland, and while we acknowledge we have more work to do, we are doing this work each and every day,' Lee said. 'Our comprehensive public safety strategy is working — crime rates are coming down even though we still face many challenges. And let me repeat, President Trump is wrong.' Before Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last year, he reportedly called the city 'horrible.' 'Trump is a lot of things but he certainly isn't subtle—all of the cities he denigrates have one important thing in common: they all have significant Black populations,' DNC Chair Jaime Harrison said in a statement to the Daily Beast at the time. In 2020, Trump said of Detroit, Oakland and Baltimore, 'these cities, it's like living in hell.' 'And everyone gets upset when I say it, they say, 'Is that a racist statement? ' It's not a racist,' Trump told Fox News. 'Frankly, Black people come up to me, they say, 'Thank you. Thank you sir for saying it.'' Davies, the UC Irvine professor, said using the fear of crime — especially the idea of 'Black crime' — has always been an effective political message in the U.S. It was a message Trump hammered consistently in the 2024 election, a race in which he doubled his share of Black voters from 2020. (still, Trump's opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, won 83% of Black voters.) 'Crime evokes fear and fear provides a political vacuum that can be filled with state violence,' Davies said. 'It will be important for experts, politicians, and journalists to call out Trump's lies about crime in these places and name this for what it is: a racist attempt to dominate Black cities and a performance of power for his base.'


The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Abbott: Texas can ‘eliminate' 10 Democratic districts in response to California
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) warned that Texas could get rid of as many as 10 Democratic districts if California moved ahead with its plan to redraw its House map and neutralize the expected GOP gains in the Lone Star State. 'Listen, all those big blue states, they've already gerrymandered,' Abbott told CNN's Jake Tapper on Monday, when asked if he was concerned about a redistricting arms race as Texas moves forward to create new congressional lines. 'Look at the map of Illinois. Look at the map of California, New York and Massachusetts, and so many other blue states they gerrymandered a long time ago. They got nothing left with regard to what they can do,' Abbott said. 'And know this: If California tries to gerrymander, find more districts, listen, Texas has the ability to eliminate 10 Democrats in our state.' Abbott's remarks underscore how Republicans plan to be as aggressive as possible in trying to knock off as many Democrats as they can. Right now, the state has 25 House Republicans and 12 Democrats, in addition to one vacancy waiting to be filled after the late Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Texas) died in March. So far, the Texas GOP's new map is looking to make five pickup opportunities for the party next year. But Texas Republicans' efforts to pass new congressional lines are stalled as Democrats have fled the state to deny the GOP a quorum, or the minimum number of lawmakers needed present to conduct business. As the redistricting war heats up, blue states have signaled they're moving ahead with their own redistricting plans. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced last week that he would be calling for a special session in November as Democrats in the Golden State look to pass a new House map that looks to offset the gains Republicans are hoping to make in Texas with their new map. New York and Illinois have also signaled they're exploring their options over how to redraw their maps in response to Texas. Meanwhile, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has signaled readiness to revisit his state's maps while Missouri and Indiana could also revisit their congressional maps.


The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Five takeaways as Trump seizes control of DC police, deploys National Guard
President Trump announced on Monday that he was taking control of the District of Columbia's police and deploying the National Guard. Trump portrayed the moves, which will involve around 800 National Guard troops, as a response to high crime rates in the nation's capital. He said it was an attempt to 'rescue' the District from 'bloodshed, bedlam and squalor.' Reporters in a packed White House briefing room received handouts just before the president spoke where the District's murder rate was shown as higher than those of other international cities including Bogota, Delhi and London. Police statistics, however, show that crime rates in the District have fallen sharply over the past two years. Violent crime is down 26 percent when compared year-to-date against 2024. Last year, in turn, saw a 32 percent drop in homicides and a 35 percent drop in overall violent crime compared to 2023. That being said, the total number of homicides last year, 187, was still above the years that immediately preceded 2020's COVID-19 pandemic. Here are the main takeaways from Trump's announcement. A major assertion of federal power — and Trump's power The decision from Trump was more expansive than many people expected. A deployment of National Guard troops had been predicted, in part because the District's status — short of full statehood — gives the president clear control of when the Guard is deployed. The decision to wrest control of Washington's police — the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) — was a significantly larger step. The fact that it came amid falling crime rates makes it even more controversial. So too does the politics of the District. Voters who gave then-Vice President Harris more than 90 percent of their votes last November will have their police force taken over by a notably divisive Republican president. Trump secured fewer than seven percent of the vote in D.C. The Home Rule Act of 1973, which gives the District its current measure of autonomy, provides for a president taking emergency control of the D.C. police for 48 hours. During that period, a president who wishes to extend control is supposed to provide the reasons for that decision to the chairpersons and ranking members of House and Senate committees with responsibilities for the District. Doing this enables presidential control for 30 days. Any extension beyond that, the statute says, can only come if 'the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.' Whether Trump accedes to those requirements remains to be seen. D.C. mayor offers modulated response District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) was critical of Trump's decision without intensifying her rhetoric as much as she could have. Bowser called the president's move 'unsettling and unprecedented' in a news conference. She also used the move to reiterate her belief that D.C. should be granted full statehood — a long-standing aim for many of the District's voters. In relation to a question about the prospect of military troops being deployed, Bowser said: 'I think I speak for all Americans: We don't believe it is legal to use the American military against American citizens on American soil.' But Bowser struck a fairly restrained tone throughout — including on social media where she wrote: 'Here's where we stand after today's announcement: we will follow the law, work with federal officials, and continue the work we do every single day to keep D.C. safe, beautiful, and the best city in the world.' Not everyone in city government was quite so measured. The District's attorney general, Brian Schwalb (D), said that Trump's move was 'unlawful' and asserted that 'there is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia.' Democrats, liberal groups worry about militarization at Trump's behest Beyond the D.C. government, Democrats, liberals and civil rights groups expressed angst over what they see as Trump's penchant for gratuitous militarization. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said in a statement that Trump's 'ever-expanding use of the military for domestic matters is beyond alarming.' Reed cited as a precursor Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles earlier this year — against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — saying that this showed a willingness 'to deploy U.S. military forces on American streets for inflammatory and political reasons.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) accused Trump of being 'an incoherent wannabe dictator who is trying to turn D.C. into his personal police state.' Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) contended that 'using U.S. military forces to enforce a policy agenda on American soil is a gross abuse of power that reeks of authoritarianism.' Among the broader criticism, Monica Hopkins, the executive director of the D.C. chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called Trump's move, 'political theater and a blatantly phony justification for abuse of emergency powers.' It's unclear where things go from here Even amid all the words on both sides, there is a lot of uncertainty. One obvious question is whether Trump will fulfill the demands of the Home Rule Act, in terms of informing Congress about the reasons for his decision to take control of the police, and in ceding back control of the MPD after no more than 30 days. Another issue is where exactly the National Guard or other federally-commanded troops will be deployed. Trump has focused on tourist-friendly areas being besmirched by crime. But in fact Washington's worst crime rates by far are found in the economically deprived neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River, far from the epicenter of tourism. Another uncertainty hangs over what the president would characterize as success. In a social media post, he insisted that crime — as well as 'Savagery, Filth and Scum' — would 'DISAPPEAR' from D.C. Presumably he doesn't consider literally zero crime to be an achievable goal. Does any crime at all amount in his mind to justification for maintaining federal control? The news conference wasn't all about D.C. During Monday's news conference, Trump took questions on other topics. The most interesting moments came when he discussed his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, scheduled for Friday in Alaska. Trump's tone suggested a new turn against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump and Vice President Vance berated Zelensky during an Oval Office meeting in late February but more recently the president had seemed to be putting pressure on Putin. That changed back Monday, when Trump once again appeared to blame Zelensky for the war, which was in fact started by Russia's 2022 invasion. 'I get along with Zelensky but, you know, I disagree with what he's done — very severely disagree,' Trump said. 'This is a war that should have never happened.' A deadline Trump had set for new sanctions on Russia expired on Friday without action being taken.