A freshman Republican representative implored last week, “Is this not the people’s House a place for mercy?” The plea came just before one of his amendments joined the 26 shot down with sweeping roll calls by the Democratic supermajority during annual budget deliberations.
On the one-year anniversary of his inaugural speech on the same topic, Rep. Ken Sweezey, R-Duxbury, made an argument Tuesday for a “year-long reprieve” for resistant communities to come into compliance with the multifamily housing zoning reform law known as the MBTA Communities Act.
Like other Republican amendments that didn’t make it into the mega-amendments drafted and adopted by Democrats, it spurred debate on the floor but ultimately failed.
The House wrapped three days of debate Wednesday by passing a $63.4 billion annual budget, adding roughly $81 million in spending through amendments while rejecting dozens more in roll calls that underscored the chamber’s partisan divide and showcased the inability of Republicans to make serious impacts on policy.
If the final 149-9 tally to pass the budget reflected a familiar outcome, the path there exposed recurring tensions over local aid, immigration, taxes and even the legislative process itself — with Republicans pressing amendments to force votes on key issues and Democrats countering with warnings about fiscal uncertainty.
One of the most sustained flashpoints came around unrestricted general government aid, where Republicans argued that municipalities are being squeezed by rising costs and forced into Proposition 2½ overrides.
Rep. Alyson Sullivan-Almeida, R-Abington, pressing an amendment to boost UGGA by 10%, framed it in stark terms.
“Many of our local cities and towns are facing budget crisis. Their budgets are going up while the promises from the state are staying stagnant,” she said. “These overrides are not happening because our communities want to raise taxes. They’re happening because they feel that they have no other options.”
She continued: “Families across our communities are already stretched thin… and now we’re asking them to shoulder the burden that we have placed on them again and again, and it’s not fair and it’s not sustainable.”
Democrats pushed back that the budget already makes significant investments in local aid, over $10 billion. Rep. Jack Patrick Lewis, D-Framingham, argued the amendment ignored the broader fiscal picture.
“This House Ways and Means budget increases local aid over last year’s final budget and over the governor’s proposed budget, and it does so in a deliberate, responsible and targeted way,” Lewis said, citing increases in education and special education funding, also pointed to GOP support for an income tax reduction.
He added, “Where was this concern for local aid on Monday, when many of the lead sponsors of this amendment voted on two proposals to cut $7 billion from our state budget? We can’t pretend that municipalities would have been spared from those draconian roll calls had they been successful.”
Sweezey, after repeatedly trying to be recognized as Democrats attempted to move to a vote, pushed back on the idea that local aid would have to absorb the major spending cuts if the income tax were reduced.
“I would just point a light, to shine a light on the fact that throughout all of our conversation the last three days every rebuttal has come back to say that the first thing we must cut is local aid, as if to say that it is mutually exclusive,” he said. “We have the ability to do both.”
The amendment failed, 25-133, and related proposals to dedicate excess revenues or end-of-year reversions to local aid met a similar fate.
Democrats repeatedly invoked the possible November ballot question to cut the income tax from 5% to 4% as a reason to reject targeted spending increases, warning it would create major revenue shortfalls.
That argument surfaced clearly during the debate on a Sullivan-Almeida amendment to guarantee full funding for regional school transportation by removing “subject to appropriation” language.
“This amendment is simple … It ensures that when we say we will fully fund regional school transportation, we actually do it,” she said, describing the high costs borne by regional districts.
Rep. Ken Gordon, D-Burlington, opposed the change, arguing it would improperly bind future legislatures and reduce fiscal flexibility at a moment of uncertainty.
“We don’t know where our financial outlook is headed,” Gordon said. “More practically and specifically, we know that there’s a ballot question coming to deal with a reduction to the income tax. If that passes, we’re going to be in a position where we are going to have to look at our spending and decide what pockets are going to be affected. We can’t protect one pocket prior to that and expose the rest.”
The amendment was rejected, reflecting a broader pattern: Democrats resisting efforts to lock in spending increases while pointing to an uncertain revenue horizon.
Earlier in the week, Rep. Marc Lombardo, R-Billerica, proposed an amendment to reduce the income tax rate to 4% — mirroring the ballot question — was defeated. The heated exchange previewed arguments likely to dominate if the proposal reaches voters.
Beyond policy, lawmakers clashed over the legislative process itself, particularly around whether committee work meaningfully shapes outcomes.
During debate on the income tax amendment, Revenue Committee Chair Rep. Adrian Madaro criticized Lombardo for not raising the proposal earlier in the session.
“We heard no supporting testimony from impacted taxpayers, no supporting testimony from business groups. We received no supporting testimony from any member of the Legislature, including from the gentleman from Billerica, who is not only the ranking minority member of this committee, but he also, chose not to attend a single hearing of the Joint Committee on Revenue this session, which would have been a perfect opportunity for him to engage with us on these issues.,” Madaro said.
Lombardo dismissed the critique in blunt terms, arguing the process was predetermined.
“When even the Boston Globe points out the fraudulent committee system, I take no offense at not attending. The outcome was predetermined,” he said.
Referencing hearings that are held Monday through Friday during business hours, he added, “And the reason you may have not heard testimony from those hardworking taxpayers during your hearing is because they’re at work.”
The exchange captured a broader frustration among Republicans — that opportunities to shape policy are limited — and counterarguments from Democrats that committees are the appropriate venue for vetting ideas.
A voter ID proposal from Lombardo drew extended debate. Republicans framed it as a measure to strengthen election integrity, while Democrats warned it could disenfranchise voters and pointed to a lack of evidence of widespread fraud. That amendment was rejected, 27-131.
Some proposals received little engagement. An amendment proposed by Rep. Kelly Pease, R-Westfield, to create a commission studying data centers — citing local concerns about energy and water use — was rejected on a voice vote without a counterargument from the majority.
In a quieter move, the House adopted a consolidated amendment that removed $50,000 worth of earmarks approved earlier in the week — all sponsored by Republicans who had voted against the earlier package.
The cuts included allocations for senior centers and councils on aging in multiple communities, an unusually public display of how Democrat leaders can wield the power of the checkbook to influence lawmakers’ voting decisions.
Attention now shifts to the Senate, where Democrats are preparing both policy and budget responses.
Original article
Comments