Transcript Highlights:

• Was that a Trump administration thing?
• There's also no federal set of SNAP data.
• Postal Service, that's federal...
• So we have administrative lists from prisons and jails. We have administrative lists from colleges.
• So we have administrator lists from prisons and jails. We have administrator lists from colleges.

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on the Census

Summary: The hearing focused on census data privacy, administrative data sharing, and the role of state and local governments in improving census accuracy, especially for the 2030 census. Dr. Philip Rocco testified first, arguing that the census is increasingly intergovernmental and that state and local investments in address list work, outreach, and complete count commissions can materially improve self-response and reduce undercounts. He emphasized that hard-to-count communities are most affected when states delay planning, politicize census work, or lack capacity, and he pointed to examples such as LUCA participation, outreach funding, and group quarters review as important tools. He also warned that recent federal actions and a broader climate of distrust could threaten 2030 operations, and urged Massachusetts to begin readiness planning now. Members then questioned Dr. Rocco about the use of administrative data such as DMV, TANF, SNAP, and WIC records, and about group quarters enumeration. He explained that those data-sharing efforts were voluntary agreements with the Census Bureau, unlike group quarters data, which are often provided by facility administrators and sometimes state agencies. He said the Trump-era effort to use DMV and other records was tied to Executive Order 13880 and was widely resisted because states had confidentiality and legal concerns, and because the stated purpose appeared to shift toward citizenship-related uses. On group quarters, he described e-response, paper response, in-person enumeration, and administrator-provided directory information, noting that privacy issues arise mainly from FERPA limits on university data and from missing demographic details in administrative records. A second panel, Beth Giroz and Amy O'Hara, then explained how administrative data are used by the Census Bureau and why data quality and privacy concerns matter. They described administrative data as records collected for operational purposes, useful for frame-building, nonresponse follow-up, enumeration, and post-enumeration evaluation, but often incomplete or mismatched on key census variables such as race, ethnicity, household relationships, and residence timing. They highlighted that some sources, like IRS, Medicare, USPS, SSA, and Bureau of Prisons records, are especially valuable, while others such as SNAP, TANF, WIC, Medicaid, CHIP, foster care, and driver’s license data vary in completeness and sharing. They stressed that privacy means collecting only what is needed, and that the Bureau typically uses limited header or roster data rather than full records. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing, and the committee recessed briefly before continuing testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• The administration is also proposing to require that tax benefits claimed for investments in federally
• He said that, when paired with the administrative actions the administration plans to take, the changes
• The employee side is administrative, and so the administration plans to issue administrative guidance
• With federal administration aggressively implementing its own fiscal priorities, states like Massachusetts
• That that administrative step is likely to happen by administration?

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Revenue

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on H. 4975, Governor Healey’s bill to manage the impact of the federal “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OB3) on Massachusetts tax law and state revenues. Administration officials, led by Secretary of Administration and Finance Matt Gorowitz, said OB3 would otherwise reduce FY26 revenue by about $442 million and argued for a phased-in conformity approach that would preserve the current-year budget while still adopting selected federal business tax provisions over time. The proposal would phase in the research and experimental expenditure deduction first, delay other major corporate provisions for two years, extend the pass-through entity excise to income subject to the 4% surtax, add a one-year delay mechanism for future federal tax changes over $20 million, limit opportunity zone benefits to Massachusetts investments, and make smaller technical changes to DFML contributions and casino reporting thresholds. Committee members questioned the rationale for phasing in rather than fully decoupling, the effect on the budget if the bill did not pass, and the treatment of opportunity zones, the surtax, and future federal tax changes. Public testimony was split. MassBudget, Progressive Massachusetts, and several labor and public-sector groups urged the committee to permanently decouple from the federal corporate tax changes rather than delay them, arguing that the bill would still send state revenue to corporate tax breaks, often for investments outside Massachusetts, and that the state should protect funding for schools, health care, human services, and other public services. The Massachusetts Society of CPAs supported the administration’s timing and the research-and-development provisions, citing filing deadlines and the importance of certainty for businesses and startups. Business and tax experts also testified that rushed conformity can create revenue losses and that the governor’s review-and-delay framework was a prudent improvement, though some said decoupling should be the default if the Legislature does not act. Unite Here Local 26 testified against sections 3 and 4, which would raise the slot-machine jackpot reporting threshold from $1,200 to $2,000, arguing the current threshold helps with problem-gambling intervention, preserves slot attendant jobs, and generates revenue. Several union leaders, including the Massachusetts Teachers Association, AFT Massachusetts, SEIU 509, the Massachusetts Building Trades, the AFL-CIO, and 1199 SEIU, urged permanent decoupling, warning that OB3’s federal tax cuts and related spending reductions would worsen budget pressures, harm public services, and shift costs onto workers, patients, and schools. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Earlier this month, the Administration for Children and Families, the Office of Child Care federally,
• Under the new federal final rule, forthcoming federal guidance may help both the administration and the
• administration.
• “A justification to the federal government for additional federal funding for federal fiscal year 2025
• California families are living in fear as the federal administration estimates and escalates mass deportation

Transcript Highlights:

• Since the new administration took office, the federal government has also terminated 218 grants to the
• Gonzalez has already alluded to in terms of some of the impacts of the federal administration policies
• In summary, as you've heard from me and other panelists today, the current federal administration has
• administration and response to federal cuts, similar to the 2008 to 2010 recession.
• As you may know, our university gave their names to the federal administration in compliance with an

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on how federal actions are affecting California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing the importance of state-federal shared governance and the need to protect access, affordability, and campus diversity. The first panel included leaders from the CSU, University of the Pacific, California Community Colleges, and UC, who described broad impacts from federal grant terminations, changes to student aid, loan limits, visa and immigration policy, and proposed reductions to research support. Testimony focused on the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, caps on Parent PLUS and Pell-related changes, the loss or suspension of hundreds of grants, and the resulting harm to student support services, research, workforce pipelines, food assistance, and health care training. UC and CSU representatives warned of major losses in research funding, indirect cost reimbursement, and student opportunities, while community college leaders highlighted uncertainty around federal grants and the need to maintain services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and other vulnerable students. Committee members asked how the state could respond, including through intersegmental partnerships, dual enrollment, transfer pathways, and support for basic needs and nutrition programs. Witnesses said California could help by sustaining financial aid, protecting minority-serving institution programs, and investing in research, housing, and workforce development. Several speakers stressed that federal changes were creating instability for students and campuses, and that the effects would likely be long-lasting, especially in health care, teaching, STEM, and social work pipelines. A second panel then focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as the $3.9 billion investment in aid programs, the Cal Grant system, the Dream Act, and possible reforms to better serve adult learners, foster youth, undocumented students, and students with dependents. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy shifts are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and reducing support for basic needs, counseling, and workforce programs. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and the CSU Academic Senate echoed concerns about FAFSA confusion, international student restrictions, grant losses, and the erosion of equity-focused programs. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and discussed possible state responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• Was that a Trump administration thing?”
• There's also no federal set of SNAP data.
• And then administrative data can be useful during enumeration because it can help— Administrative data
• So, We have administrator lists from prisons and jails. We have administrator lists from colleges.
• So we have administrator lists from prisons and jails. We have administrator lists from colleges.

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on the Census

Transcript Highlights:

• administration, or federal regulation would have the most significant impact on our colleges and universities
• Since the new administration took office, the federal government has also terminated 218 grants to the
• In summary, as you've heard from me and other panelists today, the current federal administration has
• administration and response to federal cuts, similar to the 2008 to 2010 recession.
• As you may know, our university gave their names to the federal administration in compliance with an

Committee: House Higher Education

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on the impact of federal actions on California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing shared governance, student access, and the importance of protecting California’s public systems. The first panel included leaders from CSU, UC, California Community Colleges, and the University of the Pacific, who described major disruptions from federal policy changes, including grant terminations, changes to Pell and loan programs, the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, tighter loan limits, and uncertainty around immigration, CalFresh/SNAP, and Medicaid-related rules. UC and CSU leaders said federal research and student-support cuts threaten research capacity, workforce pipelines, and services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and international students, while the community colleges highlighted uncertainty around TRIO, HSI/MSI/AANAPISI grants and the need to preserve student services and economic mobility. Members asked about the scale of funding losses, intersegmental partnerships, workforce impacts, indirect cost caps, H-1B hiring costs, and the effect of federal changes on health care and research. Witnesses said the federal environment has created instability, delayed planning, and could reduce access to graduate and professional education, especially in health fields and other high-need professions. Several witnesses urged the Legislature to support research bonds, housing and capital outlay, and continued state investment to offset federal retrenchment. The committee also discussed how cuts could affect student debt, food insecurity, and the diversity of future cohorts, with witnesses warning that the changes could narrow access and weaken California’s workforce pipeline for years. The second panel focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as Cal Grant, the Middle Class Scholarship, the Golden State Teacher Grant, and a proposed state FAFSA alternative for students who cannot access federal aid, while urging reforms to Cal Grant, better integration with CalFresh, and more support for foster youth and adult learners. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy uncertainty are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and putting basic needs, transfer support, and workforce programs at risk. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities said federal loan caps, research cuts, and attacks on DEI and HSI funding are harming access and retention, especially for first-generation and low-income students, and called for stronger state support, including transfer aid and a state-backed loan option. The CSU Academic Senate also testified that abrupt federal changes to MSI and related programs have disrupted student research, summer programs, and equity-focused initiatives, with one campus example losing $2.7 million in student-centered funding on short notice.

Transcript Highlights:

• The federal administration of mineral leasing on federal lands in Wyoming in the last 10 years has been
• The federal administration of mineral leasing has been subject to prolonged leasing moratoriums, regulatory
• The federal administration of mineral leasing has been inconsistent, unpredictable, and subject to political
• The federal administration of mineral leasing has been subject to prolonged leasing moratoriums, regulatory
• The federal administration of mineral leasing has been subject to prolonged leasing moratoriums, regulatory

Bills: SJ0001

Committee: House Minerals, Business & Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:

• Protection Agency's Deputy Administrator and from Aaron Szabo to serve as the EPA Assistant Administrator
• Chairman, today is day 45 of the second Trump administration.
• And said no, you're going to do the federal plan.
• That to me does not speak of cooperative federalism.
• And that's been the problem for the last administration.

Committee: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• against six federal judges and counting.
• And it has an asymmetric effect. 100 people challenge a federal policy, and if the federal government
• It's 2015, the end of the Obama administration, the first Trump administration, the Biden administration
• That is why federal judges and the U.S.
• Routine, well, challenging an executive order, whether it was in the Biden administration or this administration

Committee: Senate Senate Judiciary

Keywords: universal injunctions, legislative reforms, judicial authority, executive power, balance of power, judicial overreach

Summary: During this meeting, the committee focused on the implications of universal injunctions, which have become a significant concern in recent years. The discussion centered around various legislative proposals aimed at addressing the perceived overreach of district judges who issue nationwide injunctions that affect policies across the entire country. Several members expressed the belief that such injunctions undermine judicial authority and disrupt the balance of power between the judiciary and executive branches. Expert witnesses testified about the historical context of universal injunctions and the necessity for reforms that would limit the power of courts to grant remedies benefitting non-parties.

Transcript Highlights:

• But again, overall, All federal or joint federal-state.
• And the federal CMS, and this is CMS under the Biden administration, has consistently erected barriers
• As we were continuing to engage in conversations with federal CMS under the Biden administration, As
• we were continuing to engage in conversations with federal CMS under the Biden administration, they then
• A letter from the federal CMS under the Biden administration requesting a corrective action plan as to

Summary: The committee received a briefing from AHCA Deputy Secretary Brian Meyer and Florida Healthy Kids CMO Ashley Carr on implementation of HB 121, which was enacted in 2023 to expand Florida’s KidCare/CHIP eligibility from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty level and replace the sharp premium “benefits cliff” with a tiered premium glide path. Sponsor Rep. Bartleman described the bill as a bipartisan effort to help working families keep children insured while moving toward economic self-sufficiency. The presenters explained that the program remains a joint federal-state structure, with Medicaid unchanged and the bill affecting only the CHIP-related portions of KidCare. AHCA said implementation has been delayed by federal CMS actions. The agency reported that CMS first rejected a state plan amendment approach, then required revisions to the premium tiers under a new maintenance-of-effort interpretation, and later issued a new interpretation of continuous 12-month eligibility that would prevent disenrollment for nonpayment of premiums. AHCA said it submitted an 1115 waiver, but negotiations over special terms and conditions reached an impasse, and the state has filed litigation challenging CMS’s interpretation. Members asked about the cost of litigation, the effect on future bills, the review process for CMS documents, disenrollment and reenrollment rules, and whether any additional legislative action is needed; AHCA said no further state action is needed at this time and that the key issue is the pending federal litigation. Several members and the sponsor emphasized the need for immediate implementation and asked about possible interim relief. AHCA said current coverage remains in place under the preexisting program, that there is a 30-day grace period for premium payment, and that reenrollment does not require a penalty or back payment, though coverage is not active during lapsed periods. The committee also heard public comment from Nicholas Hessing of the Children’s Services Council of Broward County and the Florida Alliance of Children’s Councils and Trusts, who supported HB 121 and said the expansion could make about 17,600 additional children eligible in Broward County alone. The meeting ended with Rep. Bartleman thanking staff and expressing hope that the new federal administration would allow the program to move forward, and the chair adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Right now we have a 50/50 match with the federal government for the administration of SNAP funds.
• with the federal government for the<00:03:25.720><c> administration</c><00:03:26.520><c> of</c><00:03
• </c> into the snap administrative line. into the snap administrative line.
• What the administrative costs to run the SNAP program are and what we were able to claim in federal revenue
• So again, $24 million annually that we’re claiming on the federal government side to be as administrative

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• And what happens is when the federal government decides to make a federal tax change, as they did in
• So it is... administration so when the first Trump administration put through their tax bill they for
• This is a federal deduction, not a state deduction, so they are reducing their money from their federal
• The employee side is administrative, and so the administration plans to issue administrative guidance
• With the federal administration aggressively implementing its own fiscal priorities, states like Massachusetts

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Revenue

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on H. 4975, Governor Healey’s bill to manage the impact of federal tax changes from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OB3) on Massachusetts. Secretary of Administration and Finance Matt Gorowitz said the bill would phase in selected corporate tax changes over time, avoid a $442 million FY26 revenue hit, preserve the current-year budget, and add a few related changes, including expanding the pass-through entity excise to income subject to the 4% surtax, delaying large federal tax changes over $20 million by one year, limiting opportunity zone benefits to Massachusetts investments, adjusting DFML contributions to match IRS guidance, and aligning casino slot-winnings reporting thresholds with federal law. Committee members questioned the administration about why it chose phased conformity rather than full decoupling, the effect on the budget if the bill does not pass, the purpose of the pass-through entity change, opportunity zones, and the slot-machine threshold and family leave provisions. Public testimony was sharply divided. MassBudget, Progressive Massachusetts, and Don Griswold of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities urged the committee to go further and permanently decouple from the five most costly OB3 corporate tax provisions, arguing that automatic conformity is fiscally risky, rewards investment outside Massachusetts, and has already caused or could cause large revenue losses. Labor and public-sector witnesses, including leaders from the Massachusetts Teachers Association, AFT Massachusetts, SEIU 509, the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, and building trades unions, also called for permanent decoupling, warning that the federal law will deepen state budget pressures, harm schools, health care, human services, and infrastructure, and shift costs onto workers and public programs. Several speakers said Massachusetts should not adopt federal corporate tax cuts that mainly benefit wealthy individuals and corporations. Other testimony focused on specific provisions. Unite Here Local 26 asked the committee to strike the casino slot-winnings threshold change from $1,200 to $2,000, saying the current limit helps identify problem gambling, creates an opportunity for intervention, and supports union jobs. The Massachusetts Society of CPAs supported the administration’s phased approach, especially the research and experimental expense deduction, citing the importance of certainty for business filers and Massachusetts’ strong R&D economy. Greater Boston Legal Services testified on the paid family and medical leave sections, explaining that the bill’s changes would align PFML payroll contributions with new IRS guidance and, if paired with administrative action, would be cost-neutral for workers and employers. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• On the elimination of Prop. 56 funding, at a time when the federal administration and Congress is trying
• On the elimination of Prop. 56 funding, at a time when the federal administration and Congress is trying
• On the elimination of Prop. 56 funding, at a time when the federal administration and Congress is trying
• While I sadly expect this federal administration and Congress to attack providers of women's health and
• There is a new proposed rule from federal administrators involving provider taxes, which are a key source

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held the first of several hearings on the Governor’s May Revision for health care, with opening remarks focused on the state’s projected $12 billion deficit, looming federal Medicaid changes, and the potential impact on Medi-Cal, public health, reproductive health, and safety-net providers. Several members criticized the proposal as balancing the budget on vulnerable Californians, while others defended the need for cost containment and questioned the administration’s assumptions. The chair set ground rules for respectful, focused questioning and outlined three topics: the Medi-Cal proposals, Proposition 35, and Proposition 56. DHCS Director Michelle Baas presented the May Revision’s Medi-Cal package, saying the department’s budget totals $200.6 billion overall, including $45.2 billion General Fund, and that the proposals are intended to address rising caseloads, pharmacy costs, and managed care spending. She described proposed changes for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, including a freeze on new full-scope enrollment for those 19 and older, $100 monthly premiums beginning in 2027, elimination of adult dental and long-term care coverage, removal of PPS/RAP payments to FQHCs and rural health clinics for that population, and a pharmacy rebate aggregator. Other proposals included eliminating certain OTC drug classes, removing GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, prior authorization and step therapy changes, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test, eliminating acupuncture as an optional benefit, allowing utilization management for hospice, raising the managed care minimum medical loss ratio to 90%, reducing PACE capitation rates toward the midpoint of the actuarial range, eliminating the skilled nursing facility workforce and quality incentive program, and suspending the SNF backup power requirement. The LAO said the revised Medi-Cal spending estimate is about $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s Budget in the budget year, and that the increase appears driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload alone. The LAO said the budget solutions are concentrated in a few areas, are largely ongoing, and should be considered in light of federal uncertainty, but suggested the Legislature could explore alternatives such as more targeted income thresholds for the undocumented expansion and simpler asset-test rules. Department of Finance officials said the proposals are difficult but necessary to address a third consecutive deficit and rising Medi-Cal costs. Members then pressed the administration on the methodology and impacts of the proposals, especially the enrollment freeze, premiums, asset test, hospice controls, PACE reductions, and the elimination of benefits and provider payments. No votes or formal actions were taken at this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under the new federal rule, we are expecting forthcoming federal guidance, which may help the administration
• Under the new federal rule, we are expecting forthcoming federal guidance, which may help the administration
• It's a new federal clarification from this administration. Can you help me?
• In order to comply with both Proposition 35 and H.R. 1, the administration proposes to seek federal approval
• The administration does not see a path to obtaining federal approval for a tax on MCOs that is both compatible

Summary: The committee first heard May Revision child care and human services items. The Department of Child Support Services described two technical adjustments, which the analyst supported. The Department of Social Services then walked through child care proposals, including a reduction in federal and Proposition 64 funding absorbed through a shift from General Child Care to the Alternative Payment program, a 2.01% child care COLA, disaster-related infrastructure grants, a new administrative support cost structure for Alternative Payment agencies, the removal of prospective pay funding after a federal rule change, a reappropriation for existing infrastructure grants, and estimates of unspent child care funds. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended asking for more justification for shifting reductions to CAP, supported the COLA reduction but wanted consistency across programs, recommended removing prospective pay funding, opposed the administrative cost shift, and suggested further review of disaster grant alignment. Members pressed the administration on why more slots would be cut for the same savings, why the COLA was reduced, and whether the administrative percentage would grow over time. The administration said the changes were intended to avoid disrupting currently enrolled families, reflect point-in-time relinquishments and unspent funds, and stabilize contractor operations. Public commenters, including providers, advocates, and county representatives, urged full COLA funding, rejection of child care slot reductions, preservation of prospective pay, and continued investment in child care infrastructure and access. The subcommittee then recessed before moving to health items. In Part B, the Department of State Hospitals presented its May Revision proposals, including a central utility plant replacement project at Metropolitan State Hospital, funding for a continuum electronic health record system, reduced county bed billing authority to reflect phase-in of additional LPS beds, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscription services, reversion of prior-year unspent operating funds, and a workforce development proposal to use Behavioral Health Services Act funds instead of General Fund for training programs. The department said the EHR would modernize records and improve continuity of care, and that the contract exemption would prevent delays in essential clinical information services. No votes were taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• H.R. 1 reduces the federal share for administrative costs from 50% to 25%.
• So the administration, the federal administration, took this money out of the general pot that helped
• So the administration, the federal administration took this money out of the general pot that helped
• Previous speakers also outlined the basics of how H.R. 1 shifts administrative costs from the federal
• Low-income families depend on are being taken by the federal administration to provide tax breaks to

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• The elimination of Prop 56 funding at a time when the federal administration and Congress is trying to
• With Congress and the federal administration proposing to defund Planned Parenthood nationwide, California
• While I sadly expect this federal administration and Congress to attack providers of women's health and
• There is a new proposed rule from federal administrators involving health provider taxes, which are a
• Why would we give up $300 million from the federal? From federal matching funds?

Transcript Highlights:

• At the federal level? At the federal level. You were not talking about state employees?
• No, this administration has the highest ethical standards, and anyone who's a federal employee will be
• this administration.
• We've seen the bloating of the federal government under the Biden administration.
• It's estimated In 2024 alone, executive branch bureaucrats in the Biden administration promulgated federal

Committee: Senate Senate Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the big things we do as a state is administer federal grants.
• So we estimate that the federal changes are going to reduce, when fully implemented, federal spend on
• But the administration has to then kind of figure out how to react.
• Specific issues with Trump, with federal policy, to attend to.
• But when you are planning to respond to federal action, you better make sure that the federal action

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the big things we do as a state is administer federal grants.
• We estimate that the federal changes are going to reduce, when fully implemented, federal spend on health
• But the administration has to then kind of figure out how to react.
• Specific issues with Trump, with federal policy, to attend to.
• But when you are planning to respond to federal action, you better make sure that the federal action

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The committee heard testimony from Doug Howe of the Mass Taxpayers Foundation and Evan Horowitz of Tufts on the fiscal effects of federal policy changes, especially the OB3 reconciliation law, federal shutdown risks, and Massachusetts budget planning. Howe outlined a framework of direct and indirect federal impacts on the state budget, capital program, and grant funding, emphasizing uncertainty around Medicaid, SNAP, LIHEAP, immigration, NIH funding, and federal tax changes. He said OB3 is expected to reduce federal health spending in Massachusetts by about $3 billion annually when fully implemented, with an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 people losing coverage, and could shift up to $400 million in annual SNAP costs to the state if Massachusetts’ error rate remains above the federal threshold. He also discussed the governor’s proposal to delay conformity with certain federal tax changes and to expand the pass-through entity tax to offset revenue losses. Members questioned the witnesses about SNAP error rates, unemployment insurance, the use of the stabilization fund, and whether the state should adopt a Maryland-style delay in implementing federal tax changes. Howe argued the stabilization fund should not be used to backfill permanent obligations, but could be used for temporary crises, and said the state should improve data-sharing and administrative systems so eligible residents do not lose MassHealth or other benefits because of paperwork barriers. He also said unemployment insurance remains a major problem and that a broader fix should include benefit, tax, and possibly state contributions. Horowitz took a more aggressive view on using reserves for urgent needs like SNAP, argued the state should harden its budget against volatility, and warned that Massachusetts is increasingly exposed to stock-market-driven revenue swings and to a possible income tax ballot question that could significantly reduce revenues. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and the chair asked both witnesses for follow-up written recommendations, especially on system integration and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that there have been a lot of messages coming from the current administration at the federal
• Trump administration.
• But did we have a budget during the last Trump administration to sue him specifically or sue the federal
• The court ruled that the Trump administration had acted illegally and ordered the federal government
• And with this federal administration, we are not keeping these as two separate things, but really being

Committee: House Budget