

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The head of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy praised state policymakers for "listening to the demands of the people to create a less regressive state tax system."
While nearby California prepares for a November vote to tax the ultrarich, Democratic Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson on Monday signed state legislation that creates a tax on income over $1 million in a single year.
"Adoption of the historic Millionaires' Tax makes our tax system more fair, and means free meals for K-12 students, the largest tax break in state history for small businesses, eliminating the sales tax for baby diapers, and sending a check to nearly 500,000 working families to make life more affordable," Ferguson highlighted in a statement.
Senate Bill 6346, sponsored by state Sen. Jamie Pedersen (D-43), was delivered to the governor earlier this month after passing the upper chamber 27-21. In the Washington House of Representatives, where the companion bill was led by Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34), it was approved 51-46.
"With this bill, we're going to begin to right a historic wrong that has plagued our state for nearly 100 years, and made our tax system one of the worst and most regressive in the entire country," said Pedersen. "We've asked Washington's working families for far too long to shoulder far too much of the tax burden for the things we care about, and we have not asked enough of our wealthiest neighbors. The Millionaires' Tax represents hope and change for people in communities like mine, and across the state."
Bloomberg reported Monday that before adopting the law, which "applies a 9.9% levy on the roughly 30,000 taxpayers in the state who make more than $1 million a year," Washington was one of just nine states without an income tax
Washington lawmakers previously "made progress in recent years by creating and later enhancing their capital gains excise tax," but its "tax structure has been woefully unequal, ranking as the second-most regressive state and local tax system in the country," according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).
"Inequality is at a historic high and billionaires are walking away with ever-larger shares of our country’s collective wealth," ITEP executive director Amy Hanauer said in a Monday statement. "With those in charge at the federal level passing policies that only make this worse, it is incumbent upon states to come up with solutions. It is inspiring to see Washington listening to the demands of the people to create a less regressive state tax system."
Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson has officially signed into law a new tax on millionaires.The 9.9% tax on income above $1 million is projected to raise up to $3 billion in 2029 after it takes effect in 2028.That money will go towards public education, child care, and expanding the state's EITC.
— ITEP (@itep.org) March 30, 2026 at 1:25 PM
Last year, congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump used the GOP's narrow majorities to pass a budget package, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, that provided the rich with more tax breaks while slashing programs for working families, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Ferguson signed Washington's bill as Republicans in Congress prepare for this year's budget package, which they aim to pass ahead of the November midterm elections, and other states and localities consider measures to tax the rich and use the revenue to better serve the working class.
As historian Lawrence Wittner detailed in an opinion piece for Common Dreams last week, "Campaigns for state tax-the-rich legislation are flourishing in California, Colorado, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia, and have already succeeded in getting such legislation adopted in Massachusetts and Washington."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) headed to New York City on Sunday to boost an effort by NYC's newly elected mayor, Zohran Mamdani, to pressure Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul to raise taxes on the rich. He addressed a rally at Lehman College in the Bronx.
"The people of the city, the people of this state, the people of this country, they do not want to see our kids go hungry," Sanders said. "They do not want people to sleep out on the street or lack healthcare. They want the very rich to start paying their fair share of taxes."
At the federal level, Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) earlier this month introduced the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act. They were followed last week by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), lead sponsors of the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act. However, neither bill is expected to get through the current Congress.
Washington makes history today! Gov. Bob Ferguson just signed the Millionaires Tax into law!For too long, the wealthiest few have paid a smaller share while working families carried the load.
[image or embed]
— Washington State Democrats (@wadems.org) March 30, 2026 at 1:28 PM
Like in Washington, DC, efforts to tax the rich are still facing pushback in Washington state. After Ferguson's signature, Citizen Action Defense Fund announced its intention to sue, with executive director Jackson Maynard declaring that "since lawmakers and the governor have chosen to ignore both the constitution and decades of settled case law, we will act."
According to KUOW, during the bill signing event in Olympia that featured remarks from not only the governor but also the bill sponsors, a small business owner, and a tech executive, Ferguson acknowledged that "there's going to be a public conversation around this in the days and weeks and months ahead, as there should be of something of this historic nature."
"Putting front and center those perspectives you just heard, I think, will be critical," he asserted, "because when Washingtonians hear the benefits that flow to working families, to businesses large and small, to kids in schools with those free meals, for childcare services for thousands of Washington families, it's going to make a huge, huge difference."
"These are not abstract numbers," wrote National Education Association president Becky Pringle. "These are real children who show up to school eager to learn but are instead distracted by hunger."
The leader of the largest teachers union in the United States is sounding the alarm over the impact that President Donald Trump's newly enacted budget law will have on young students, specifically warning that massive cuts to federal nutrition assistance will intensify the nation's child hunger crisis.
Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association (NEA)—which represents millions of educators across the U.S.—wrote for Time magazine earlier this week that "as families across America prepare for the new school year, millions of children face the threat of returning to classrooms without access to school meals" under the budget measure that Trump signed into law last month after it cleared the Republican-controlled Congress.
Estimates indicate that more than 18 million children nationwide could lose access to free school meals due to the law's unprecedented cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid, which are used to determine eligibility for free meals in most U.S. states.
The Trump-GOP budget law imposes more strict work-reporting requirements on SNAP recipients and expands the mandates to adults between the ages of 55 and 64 and parents with children aged 14 and older. The Congressional Budget Office said earlier this week that the more aggressive work requirements would kick millions of adults off SNAP over the next decade—with cascading effects for children and other family members who rely on the program.
"Educators see this pain every day, and that's why they go above and beyond—buying classroom snacks with their own money—to support their students."
Pringle wrote in her Time op-ed that "our children can't learn if they are hungry," adding that as a middle school science teacher she has seen first-hand "the pain that hunger creates."
"Educators see this pain every day, and that's why they go above and beyond—buying classroom snacks with their own money—to support their students," she wrote.
The NEA president warned that cuts from the Trump-GOP law "will hit hardest in places where families are already struggling the most, especially in rural and Southern states where school nutrition programs are a lifeline to many."
"In Texas, 3.4 million kids, nearly two-thirds of students, are eligible for free and reduced lunch," Pringle wrote. "In Mississippi, 439,000 kids, 99.7% of the student population, were eligible for free and reduced-cost lunch during the 2022-23 school year."
"These are not abstract numbers," she added. "These are real children who show up to school eager to learn but are instead distracted by hunger and uncertainty about when they will eat again. America's kids deserve better.
Pringle's op-ed came as school leaders, advocates, and lawmakers across the country braced for the impacts of Trump's budget law.
"We're going to see cuts to programs such as SNAP and Medicaid, resulting in domino effects for the children we serve," Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) said during a recent gathering of lawmakers and experts. "For many of our communities, these policies mean life or death."
I certainly do not agree with Harris and Walz on every issue, but since electing them is one step closer to climate progress, free school lunch, fast trains, and legal weed, I will be voting for them on November 5.
During my childhood, one consistent theme was bragging to family and friends out of state about Michigan’s lakes, great and small. I remember being horrified when I got to college in Chicago and met a Minnesotan who was equally proud of her lakes and believed they had more lakes and better hockey.
Eventually, I got over the lake contest to focus on protecting freshwater for everyone, but in 2023, I became green with envy for what Minnesota has anew.
Under Gov. Tim Walz, Minnesota passed one of the most impressive legislative packages in the United States, developed by a diverse coalition of climate experts, transit activists, union leaders, and racial justice organizers over years.
When I think of Minnesota today, I think of learning from them about the future we deserve.
I want to achieve what Minnesota signed into law with a one-seat Democratic majority in Michigan—and I believe it’s possible if we elect the Harris-Walz ticket on November 5.
Gov. Walz signed a renewable energy standard into law in Minnesota, even while supporting the best green bank law in the country, with strong labor and environmental justice standards, to implement and maximize the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law by U.S. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. As our air is sullied by Canadian wildfires and our water is threatened by agricultural runoff, Michigan needs stronger standards too.
Thanks to Walz’s leadership, no kid in Minnesota is hungry at school, with free breakfast and lunch guaranteed to students. Some don’t need it and bring their own lunch, but guaranteeing full bellies will keep kids healthy and help them learn. No student in Michigan should be hungry during math class either, and Harris has already put forward policy proposals. That would be an excellent start at reducing food prices.
Minnesota has also passed arguably the best transportation policy in the country, pushed by legislators and advocates for safe streets and celebrated and signed by the governor. This bill would prioritize projects that protect clean air, expand freedom of movement, and reduce traffic too.
Imagine if Michiganders could take a reliable train home from the bar or have the option to take a speedy bus to work if a car was in the shop. We need policies like this that benefit people in Michigan and across the country. Harris was inspired by these efforts and picked Walz in part to invest in clean transportation and safe streets.
Minnesota also legalized marijuana, and under Gov. Walz’s leadership, they didn’t stop there. They created an office to expunge records of people impacted by over-criminalization of weed and provided incentives and benefits for impacted families to get a head start in the legal marijuana business. Our state incarcerates far too many of our neighbors, and many more would be supportive of recreational use and growing the tax base. Vice President Harris has echoed that she would support legalization, and creative public policy work like that in Minnesota is what will be needed to do so in an equitable way in states like ours.
I certainly do not agree with Harris and Walz on every issue, but since electing them is one step closer to climate progress, free school lunch, fast trains, and legal weed, I will be voting for them on November 5.
I still brag about Michigan and Detroit-style pizza to anyone who listens, and I still play pond hockey in February with my siblings when I can. I’m even still riding our Lions’ win over the Vikings to be first in the conference.
But we all deserve healthy kids and safe streets, so when I think of Minnesota today, I think of learning from them about the future we deserve—and I believe it is within reach.
"When the school year ends, millions of low-income children lose access to the school meals they depend on," an expert said.
An advocacy group on Tuesday published a report showing that only a fraction of children who receive free or reduced-price lunches during the school year get such benefits through United States Department of Agriculture programs in the summer, leaving many families with school-age children food insecure.
Only 15.3% of the number of children who receive subsidized school lunches received a summer meal in 2023, the last year for which data was available, the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) report, Hunger Doesn't Take a Vacation, says. The findings highlight the difficulty of reaching children outside of school.
"When the school year ends, millions of low-income children lose access to the school meals they depend on," Kelsey Boone, a FRAC policy analyst and report co-author, told Common Dreams.
The report assesses the 2023 impact of two long-standing USDA programs that were rebranded this year under the name SUN Meals. The USDA also added two new summer meals programs this year, SUN Meals To-Go and SUN Bucks, the latter of which has been the subject of political controversy.
The SUN Bucks program provides a modest $120 per child for the summer to low-income families in electronic benefit transfers (EBTs), similar to the way food stamp money is distributed. The program is administered by states, territories, and tribes and is expected to bring $2.5 billion in grocery benefits to 21 million children this summer.
But it could reach even more children: 13 Republican-controlled states have opted out. They cite reasons including philosophical opposition to "welfare," other summer lunch programs already on offer in their states, and high administrative costs. All of the EBT money comes directly from the federal government, but states are required to pay 50% of the costs of running the program.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom's press office responded to news of the Republican opt-outs by writing on social media earlier this month that "California has fed over 3.2 million kids through summer meal programs while Republican states refuse free federal dollars."
Connecticut State Sen. Bob Duff, a Democrat, responded by writing, "Is being cruel part of the [Republican] party platform?"
In Florida, where the Republican administration opted out of SUN Bucks, families who could have benefited expressed disbelief.
Crystal Ripolio, a woman in Tallahassee who said she struggles to feed her 8-year-old daughter, told The Associated Press that her state should offer the same summer meal money that other states do.
"If other states are able to do it, why can't we?" she said, standing outside a food bank that happened to be near Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' official residence in Tallahassee. "That doesn't make sense."
Some Republican-controlled states, such as Louisiana and Nebraska, initially declined to opt in but ultimately decided to do so. States that opted out of SUN Bucks in 2024 may enroll next year.
The USDA's other programs, including those addressed in the new report, face challenges that are not as explicitly political. Though the summer programs did reach 2.8 million children per day in 2023, logistical challenges abound.
"We believe that the low ratio of summer lunch to school year lunch is due to many factors including barriers to participation such as lack of transportation and lack of meal sites in a child's area and high area eligibility thresholds, meaning an open site (a site that serves all children that come to it regardless of income status) must be in an area where 50% or more of the population of children are eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch," Boone said.
"It is much easier to access meals when children are already at school," she added.
The FRAC report calls on Congress to allow more communities to offer summer meals and to let more sites operate year-round and provide three meals a day.
His strategy will shift from “death by a thousand cuts” to abolish, terminate, and destroy.
The U.S. safety net is not easily understood. Difficult to navigate, it sprawls across numerous federal agencies and departments. Dozens of programs, ranging from free school lunch to disability insurance to unemployment protection have different eligibility criteria, application procedures, and benefit levels. While critical for millions of Americans, recipients are under continuous scrutiny: regularly castigated, accused of laziness, irresponsible behavior, fraud, and, among other chilling characterizations, undeserving. Its fragmented nature and lack of powerful allies makes it difficult to protect and leaves many of its core programs vulnerable to attack and retrenchment.
For decades, Republicans have been intent on instilling more stringent eligibility requirements for safety net programs, reducing program funding, and in some cases eliminating programs and agencies entirely. When Donald Trump entered office in 2016, he sought to strangle the American safety net using a “death by a thousand cuts” strategy that relied heavily on the administrative rule-making process and the judicial system, hence moving policy decision-making away from Congress. Many of these efforts ultimately stalled or failed because of legal challenges and administrative missteps by Trump officials.
Conservatives learned from these failures, and have worked tirelessly over the past four years to craft a sweeping set of reforms that would enable Trump to wield authority far more easily, and be far more reaching, than during his first term. Trump, according to Kevin Roberts, President of the conservative Heritage Foundation, stumbled out of the gate after winning in 2016: “Heritage and our allies in Project 2025 believe that must never be repeated.”
Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 2025, rectifies this and lays the groundwork for how to pull this off. Biblically-based in Judeo-Christian traditions and service to God, it echoes the racial resentment and discriminatory effects of equity that Trump has stoked for the past eight years. A second Trump administration, run by well-vetted right-wing loyalists, will “identify and reverse all actions taken by the Biden administration to advance progressive ideology and further equity.” “Nothing”, they profess, “is more important than deconstructing the centralized administrative state”. But, as they well know, it will be at the expense of millions who rely on its support and services to live.
How might this unfold?
Despite the fiscal challenges that Social Security and Medicare face, Trump has promised changes, yet offers no concrete plans or proposals. But his GOP allies in Congress, including House Speaker Mike Johnson have proposed benefit reductions and other changes. During his time as chair of the Republican Study Committee, Johnson proposed several reforms that advocates warned were clearly “veiled attempts” to raise the retirement age and ultimately make benefits less generous.
Trump’s attack on the safety net, however, would target programs that do not receive the coverage or political support of Social Security and Medicare. As a guide for action, the Mandate outlines numerous consequential changes for programs related to food and nutrition, shelter, and education programs for poor and low-income children and families.
The repository for all means-tested programs from all agencies and departments slated for reduction or termination will be The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Programs like SNAP, school meals programs, and meals programs for the elderly will be moved out of the Department of Agriculture into HHS so as to remove any inkling of a “welfare-based” focus. Universal free school meals will be eliminated.
Along with the elimination of the Department of Education and Head Start and learning programs that target poor communities, all federal funding will be block-granted to states; an overt response to allowing states freedom to do as they see fit with no federal oversight. Existing research shows that over time, block-granting programs ultimately leads to funding reductions and diversions.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will be reinvented and existing work requirements will be strengthened to move people toward self-sufficiency. All fair housing regulations designed to further equity and reduce discrimination will be repealed.
Across all departments and programs, racial classifications and quotas will be eliminated.
What does this mean to the millions who rely on social infrastructure programs?
Turning power over to states will have disastrous consequences for low-income children and families. Thirteen red states have already refused federal money for summer meal programs for low-income and poor children, citing philosophical objections with welfare programs and lack of control over what families might purchase with the food-only benefit. At least 21 million children, living in families with annual incomes under $46,000 (for a family of 3), will not have access to a $40 per child monthly grocery benefit. The negative impacts on child health and development in the short-term, and the long-term implications of mired adult achievement and productivity because of poor nutrition in early childhood is, however, of little concern.
The elimination of Head Start will knowingly harm nearly 1 million low-income young children a year at a pivotal stage in their educational and social development: helping them build the skills they need to be successful in school and life while taking a comprehensive approach to meeting the needs of their families. The effects will be most consequential amongst Hispanic and African-American children, dual language learners, children who are homeless or in foster care, those who qualify for free lunch, and those whose mothers didn't graduate high school. Head Start children have a higher likelihood of graduating high school, attending college, and receiving a post-secondary degree, license, or certification as well as reduced teen pregnancy and criminal engagement and increased educational attainment among their children despite Mandate claims to the contrary.
Existing research shows that housing vouchers reduce homelessness, housing instability, and improves numerous outcomes for children and families. The proposed changes at HUD will make housing assistance more difficult for low-income individuals to access, which is difficult to comprehend given how challenging it is to access these programs already. Vouchers are critical to lift people out of poverty and reduce racial inequity. The access challenges will be most heavily concentrated among people with the lowest incomes and people of color as a result of decades of housing and employment discrimination.
At the heart of this attack on America is the resolve to ensure that all intents to promote equity and preserve the dignity, freedom and well-being of individuals are squelched, especially for those not white and who have, in any number of ways, been marginalized by societal and economic injustices. Humanity, protection of those less fortunate than the power elite, civility, and rights to basic needs does not fit with the plan laid out by right-wing zealots in the Mandate.
When Donald Trump assumed the presidency in 2017, it was unclear exactly how he would govern. Many conservatives, and even some liberals, thought the institution of the presidency would constrain him. In some ways, it did. But as his grip on the presidency loosened over the course of 2020 and into 2021, the guardrails that had worked to contain his most dangerous impulses similarly began to slip away.
Trump learned several lessons from his four years in the White House: to prize loyalty above competence or governing experience, and that divisive rhetoric focused on resentment, retribution, and retaliation motivates his base more than programmatic policy positions. His future actions are now easier to predict and will be far more dangerous. As one New York Times report noted, “Forces that somewhat contained his autocratic tendencies in his first term — staff members who saw their job as sometimes restraining him, a few congressional Republicans episodically willing to criticize or oppose him, a partisan balance on the Supreme Court that occasionally ruled against him — would all be weaker.”
The war that Trump would wage on the safety net in a second term would unfortunately, be unsurprisingly cruel. In many ways, his assault on the welfare state would be a continuation of a fifty-year war that began in earnest when Ronald Reagan won the White House in 1980. It was then that the Heritage Foundation put together its original Mandate for Leadership to prepare for Reagan’s presidency, described as “a blueprint for grabbing the government by its frayed New Deal lapels and shaking out 48 years of liberal policy.” Reagan ushered in a new era of opposition to the social safety net, which has left the welfare state in a state of fragmentation, passive neglect, and perpetual inadequacy.
The GOP assault on the safety net has been a decades-long battle, and there is no indication that Trump will suddenly change the party’s positioning on social welfare programs. In fact, the available evidence indicates that if he wins a second term, his strategy will shift from “death by a thousand cuts” to abolish, terminate, and destroy.
"It only took literally everyone in the entire state telling him that he was being a monster," said one political scientist, "for him to do the absolute easiest thing and feed hungry kids."
As the deadline rapidly approached for state governments to accept federal funds for summer food assistance for children, Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen announced Monday that conversations with students from around the state had convinced him to take the funding—leaving just 14 Republican-led states still refusing the aid.
At a news conference, the GOP governor—who previously said he didn't "believe in welfare" and would be forgoing $18 million for the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (Summer EBT) program—said he had changed his mind after "an evolution of information" about how young people across Nebraska would be affected by his decision.
Pillen said he spoke to students at a youth legislative day at the state Capitol earlier this month and during a visit to a school in Boys Town, Nebraska.
"They talked about being hungry, and they talked about the summer USDA program and, depending upon access, when they'd get a sack of food," Pillen said Monday. "And from my seat, what I saw there, we have to do better in Nebraska."
The funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will provide the families of an estimated 150,000 children across the state with pre-loaded EBT cards that they'll be able to use for groceries, with $40 to spend per summer month. The children who qualify for the program are eligible for free and reduced-price lunches during the school year and other assistance programs such as Medicaid.
Lawmakers in the officially nonpartisan Nebraska Legislature had been pressuring Pillen to accept the funding, with state Sen. Jen Day, a registered Democrat, introducing a bill that would have forced the state to participate in the Summer EBT program. Her legislation had the support of state Sen. Ray Aguilar, who is registered as a Republican, but was stalled in the Senate after a hearing last week.
Day called Pillen's reversal a "HUGE win for Nebraska kids, families, and local [agriculture] producers and small businesses."
"I want to thank the governor for heeding the call of myself, my colleagues, and countless Nebraskans who asked the governor to rethink his decision," Day said.
The deadline for states to accept the Summer EBT funding was originally January 1, but was extended to this Thursday.
Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming—all led by Republican governors—were still planning to forgo the funding as of Tuesday, despite outcry from anti-poverty groups, pediatricians, and Democratic lawmakers.
Nebraska state Sen. Megan Hunt applauded the young residents who pushed Pillen to take the funding, saying it showed that "all voices make a positive difference."
"This would not be possible without the tremendous amount of outreach and pressure the public put on our elected officials to do the right thing," said Eric Savaiano, economic justice program manager for Nebraska Appleseed.
Ari Kohen, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, was careful not to heap much praise onto Pillen for agreeing to feed low-income children in the state, calling the governor "Nebraska's own Ebenezer Scrooge."
"It only took literally everyone in the entire state telling him that he was being a monster—and probably being haunted by some ghosts—for him to do the absolute easiest thing and feed hungry kids with someone else's money," said Kohen.
"Taxing the rich, it's good," said one progressive advocate in the state.
A new "millionaire's tax" in Massachusetts was expected to generate $1 billion in revenue last year to help pay for public education, infrastructure, and early childcare programs, but projections were a bit off, according to a fresh state analysis.
The state Department of Revenue estimated late last week that the Fair Share Amendment, which requires people with incomes over $1 million, to pay a 4% annual surtax, will add $1.5 billion to state coffers this fiscal year, which ends in June—surpassing expectations.
Universal free school meals, much-needed improvements to an aging public transportation system, and tuition-free education for community college students are just some of the programs Massachusetts' wealthiest residents have helped pay for after voters approved the law in 2022 amid growing calls across the United States to tax the richest households and corporations.
The amendment was narrowly passed via a statewide ballot initiative in 2022 despite claims by opponents that it would force wealthy residents and businesses to leave the state.
The state analysis of the law shows that requiring wealthy households to pay more in taxes to contribute to the greater good has overall benefits for the state, said observers including Jonathan Cohn, political director for Progressive Massachusetts.
"The Fair Share Amendment has had a great first year. Looking forward to many more!" said the organization.
According to Fair Share, which advocated for the passage of the referendum in 2022, $150 million of the new revenue has been allocated to expanding green infrastructure and other construction projects in schools, while it cost the state's richest taxpayers just $69 million to fund free school meals for every child in Massachusetts, "saving families hundreds of dollars."
More than $205 million is being spent to upgrade, repair, and maintain the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority system, and $150 million is going toward bridge and road repairs. Expanded access to high-quality childcare and pre-kindergarten is being paid for with just $70.5 million, and $50 million is going toward tuition-free community college.
The investments are "only possible because the voters passed this constitutional amendment and we created this new tax," Andrew Farnitano, spokesperson for the Raise Up MA Coalition, told WBUR.
"The money is going where it was promised," he added. "Those are fundamental investments in our economy that are needed to make sure it works for everyone."
Farnitano told MassLive that revenues from the Fair Share Amendment are expected to increase as much as $2 billion by the time the 2025 budget goes into effect.
“Over the past few months, we've seen the impact, and that will only grow," he said.
An overall decline in other state revenue shows that the public spending would be impossible without the Fair Share Amendment, Farnitano told WBUR.
A Politico/Morning Consult poll found in September 2021 that 74% of Americans agreed with the statement, "The wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes," and a Gallup survey found in August 2022, three months before the Massachusetts law was passed, that 52% of respondents believed the U.S. government should "redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich," while 47% disagreed.
"What's up with the GOP's fetish for preventing hungry kids from getting fed?" asked Sen. John Fetterman.
Progressive U.S. lawmakers said Thursday that they'll do everything in their power to stop the Republican Party from achieving its stated goal of eliminating a school lunch program that serves low-income communities, which was included in a proposed budget unveiled by the party this week.
Along with making former President Donald Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy permanent and imposing work requirements for recipients of social services up to age 64, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) made clear in its proposed budget on Wednesday that reducing the number of children who receive government-funded meals at school is a policy priority in the coming year.
The document states that the RSC—which counts three-quarters of House Republicans among its members—aims to eliminate the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) from the federal school lunch program, citing the fact that the provision "allows certain schools to provide free school lunches regardless of the individual eligibility of each student."
The CEP is available to schools in low-income communities and allows schools to provide free school meals to their entire student population instead of excluding children based on their household income.
The budget makes clear that to the Republican Party, "every wealthy child accidentally fed is a policy failure," said Adam Cisroe Pearson, director of the St. Louis Department of Human Services.
"Not on my watch," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) of the Republicans' plans for the CEP.
U.S. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) pledged that as chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Food and Nutrition, he will fight to get the "basic need" of universal school meals met.
After Republicans allowed the pandemic-era universal school meal program to expire, more than two dozen states including Maine, California, and Minnesota moved to offer meals at school to all children, regardless of income. Under federal law, only children whose families have incomes at or below 130% of the poverty line—those making about $36,000 per year or less—are eligible for free school meals.
Studies have shown that offering school meals to all students has positive effects on attendance and academic performance across the student population, and that providing universal meals reduces stigma and makes it more likely that the children who need nutritional assistance the most will participate.
"As with many universal-oriented programs, it is more practically efficient and, as a bonus, lifts all boats," wrote Prem Thakker at The New Republic regarding the CEP. "This is what Republicans are looking to eliminate."