policy

Gov. Maura Healey announced a plan Tuesday to “immediately stabilize” the struggling MBTA's funds by pouring billions of dollars in investments into the authority and other transportation improvements.

Healey's plan, which calls for $8 billion over the subsequent decade, doesn’t include any tax increases. Instead, her office said the plan would maximize funds generated by the state's Fair Share Amendment, also often known as the “millionaire's tax,” through borrowing and other existing resources.

Immediately under the plan, the Healey government will direct $857 million of excess revenue generated by the Fair Share Amendment in 2024 into public transport.

“This historic transportation proposal represents smart, forward-thinking financial management and will impact people in every region of our state,” Healey said in an announcement. “We will invest billions of dollars to create better roads, less traffic, safer bridges and a transportation system that works in every region. We will close the MBTA's budget gap by improving service and modernizing stations, and we will advance regional projects like West-East Rail. And we can do all of this without raising taxes.”

The announcement comes just days before Healey expected to deliver her second State of the Commonwealth Address. The plan was released because the state's Transportation Funding Task Force submitted a final report back to the governor.

Healey said the findings of the duty force to stabilize and improve transportation within the state helped shape her administration's proposal when planning for the longer term, and said most of the group's recommendations can be put into motion.

In an announcement Tuesday, MBTA executive director and CEO Phillip Eng praised the proposal.

“This solutions-focused approach results in a historic investment and will provide critical support to the MBTA, including increasing our operational capacity, improving service and ensuring a more sustainable, reliable transportation system for all riders,” he said.

The latest transportation plan will likely be filed into law in the approaching weeks as a part of Healey's fiscal 12 months 2026 budget proposal and an accompanying supplemental budget, in response to the governor's office. Healey may even face a multi-year sentence Chapter 90 Later that 12 months, she passed a bill that her administration said would increase funding allocated to municipalities for local roads and sidewalks to $300 million per 12 months for five years.

“The combined effect of the FY26 Governor's House Budget Proposal 1 and the FY24 supplemental budget for the use of excess Fair Share revenues will be a 50 percent split between Fair Share resources for transportation since the enactment of the voter-approved resolution and education lead surcharge,” Healey’s office said. “This was one of the key recommendations in the Transportation Funding Task Force report.”

In addition to doubling support for the MBTA's operating budget and immediately closing the agency's budget deficit, Healey's proposal would allocate $1.4 billion to upgrade MBTA infrastructure equivalent to latest commuter train cars and subway cars, in addition to 2.5 billion to speculate billions of dollars in road and bridge repairs across the state, closing the funding gap for the Allston I-90 project and supporting projects that meet the Advance west-east railway proposal.

Worcester City Manager Eric Batista is amongst officials already expressing support for the governor's proposal.

“Significant investment in public transit is critical for growing communities like Worcester,” he said in an announcement. “These funds will directly impact and improve the lives of residents who use Commuter Rail to connect to Boston and beyond, use the Worcester Regional Transportation Authority to conduct their daily activities, and use our local roadways to stay safe and get around the city efficiently.”

Despite immediate praise from some for the proposal, Reggie Ramos, executive director of the statewide Transportation for Massachusetts coalition, had a measured response to the plan.

“We look forward to reviewing the governor’s funding plan in detail,” she said. “We will first make sure that it does justice to the scale of the problem, which is huge and cannot be solved through an over-reliance on the bond. We also need to ensure equity, both in the scope of the plan and in the financing mechanisms.

“Providing significantly higher fair share revenues for transport is a good first step towards these criteria,” she added. “Swift action is needed to pull the MBTA out of a deficit that would otherwise have devastating consequences for riders and communities.”

In unveiling her plan Tuesday, Healey emphasized that her administration is targeted on transportation since it is a component of the on a regular basis experience of “almost everyone in the state,” and she or he expressed hope that her proposal will improve the standard of life for residents across the state would state.

“The work isn’t done yet,” she said. “But if we don't deal with stabilization, if we don't deal with the foundation that has been crumbling for decades, we won't have a chance to build anything meaningful. You know that. You can't build a house without a foundation or the whole damn thing will fall apart, no matter how pretty it looks on the outside. That’s what we did today.”

Tesla Inc.'s electric vehicles can be excluded from consumer rebates under a proposal from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, pitting the incoming Democratic presidential candidate against Republican strongman Elon Musk.

Newsom unveiled plans Monday to supply discounts to electric vehicle buyers if President-elect Donald Trump repeals a federal subsidy. A program that California allowed to run out in 2023 may very well be restarted instead of the $7,500 tax credit, the governor said.

RELATED: Elon Musk shares some details about his immigration journey. Experts say they still have questions

His office told Bloomberg News that the present proposal includes market share limits that will exclude Tesla's popular electric automotive models. The details — including Tesla's possible omission from the credits — are being negotiated with the state legislature and will change, Newsom's office said.

“This is about creating the market conditions for more of these automakers to gain a foothold,” the governor’s office said. It was not immediately clear whether other automakers can be excluded.

Musk, Tesla's billionaire CEO, posted on his social media platform X that the proposal was “crazy,” citing the automaker's manufacturing presence within the state.

The move would exclude market-leading Tesla from a key incentive program aimed toward encouraging wider adoption of electrical vehicles at a time when growth in fully electric vehicles is slowing. Tesla's models qualify for the federal credit established as a part of the climate law signed by President Joe Biden, the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Tesla expulsion could boost Newsom's standing on the left because it triggers renewed conflict with Musk, who has turn out to be a member of Trump's inner circle and has taken on the role of helping the brand new administration cut government spending. Musk has said he agrees with eliminating federal subsidies.

“This is a slap in the face to Tesla,” Gene Munster, managing partner of Deepwater Asset Management, said of the California proposal.

Tension in California

Musk had angrily denounced government orders to shut Tesla's Fremont factory in the course of the Covid-19 pandemic, calling them “fascist” in an earnings release. When Musk announced the headquarters move, Newsom said Tesla owed a part of its success to California.

Tesla still accounts for greater than half of all latest electric vehicles sold in California, but its market power is waning. According to the California New Car Dealers Association, Tesla's sales in California fell 12.6% in the primary three quarters in comparison with a 12 months ago, although overall electric vehicle sales within the state rose 1%. Tesla manufactured 54.5% of all electric vehicles registered within the state in the primary three quarters, a major decline from 63% in the identical period last 12 months.

California clashed continuously with Trump over auto emissions rules in the course of the latest president's first term, and state leaders have made clear they are actually preparing for an additional fight. Newsom has already sought to insulate the state's policies on issues corresponding to reproductive rights, climate and immigration from potential threats under a Trump administration.

Trump has long criticized the Biden administration's efforts to subsidize electric vehicles to advertise the adoption of cleaner cars. His transition team is now searching for to lower fuel efficiency requirements for brand new cars and light-weight trucks as a part of plans to ease Biden policies, which the president-elect has dubbed the “EV mandate,” Bloomberg News reported last week.

California and states like Oregon and Colorado are currently exempt from regulations that prevent them from adopting their very own emissions standards for brand new vehicles. More than a dozen states, representing greater than a 3rd of the U.S. auto market, have now officially chosen to follow California's rules.

In his first term, Trump took aim at California's right to set stricter gasoline consumption rules than the federal government. He is anticipated to make one other try and reverse California's carveout under the 1970 Clean Air Act after he takes office in January.

Tesla shares fell 2.9% as of three:53 p.m. in New York.

For more stories like this, take a look at Bloomberg.com

©2024 Bloomberg LP

Originally published: November 26, 2024 at 6:45 am PST

The deadline to use for a REAL ID to board domestic flights and enter certain federal facilities is May 7, 2025. After a couple of extensions already, the Transportation Security Administration has done so suggested a transition period It takes two years for full ID card enforcement to take effect.

If this proposal is accepted, here's what that you must know:

Q: Is the May 7, 2025 REAL ID deadline real?

A: Yes, says the TSA The proposal doesn’t extend the deadline. Travelers with out a REAL ID or other acceptable ID akin to a passport or Global Entry Card could face delays at airport security checkpoints next yr.

Q: Why the transition period?

A: This flexibility is essential because, in accordance with the proposal, only about 56 percent of state driver's licenses and ID cards were compatible with REAL ID as of January. Officials fear there could possibly be a flood of applicants before the May deadline, overwhelming state authorities and resulting in delays in applying for ID cards.

Officials also fear long lines, confusion and frustrated travelers at checkpoints, which could actually result in increased security risks on the airport.

The proposal would give agencies flexibility by “explicitly allowing agencies to implement card-based enforcement in phases.”

Q: What happens if I don't have a REAL ID after the deadline?

A: If you might be unable to present acceptable identification at security checkpoints, the proposal sets out possible plans under which travelers could also be issued warning notices. This could evolve right into a “three strikes” system where certain travelers can be turned away from checkpoints until their ID is updated.

Q: Do children need a REAL ID?

A: Children under 18 will not be required to present identification so long as they’re traveling domestically accompanied by an adult with acceptable identification.

Q: Do I would like a REAL ID to drive in California?

A: Real ID isn’t required to acquire a driver's license, nor does it affect your ability to vote or voter registration.

Q: Where did the thought for REAL ID come from?

A: The REAL ID Act was created following the 9/11 Commission's suggestion to determine minimum security standards for federally issued driver's licenses and identification cards for boarding federally regulated industrial aircraft, accessing certain federal facilities, and entering nuclear power plants.

The original deadline was October 2020, nevertheless it was pushed back a couple of times as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Are you able to get a REAL ID? Here's learn how to do it in California – and a tip on learn how to stay one step ahead of the competition.

Originally published: September 27, 2024 at 12:49 p.m

A risk to your competitive advantage

A digital darling under statement

Proposition 4 on California's November ballot calls for borrowing $10 billion to fund quite a few environmental proposals that, unfortunately, are more the product of politics than good policy.

Voters should reject this measure. After this 12 months's budget debacle, elected officials mustn’t be eyeing latest bonds and more debt for an unfocused spending plan.

Less than three months ago close a budget deficit of $47 billion, Governor Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers agreed Withdraw $12 billion over two years from the state's emergency fund. That is around 35% of the state reserves.

This money should really be put aside for a serious economic downturn, not for a gross miscalculation of presidency revenues. The government is now in a weaker position to cope with a future recession.

With this in mind, California should definitely not overdraw its bank card and increase installment payments – especially not for a hodgepodge of programs.

There is nothing incorrect with most of Proposition 4's individual proposals to make sure clean drinking water, strengthen drought, flood and water resilience, increase clean energy production, mitigate rising sea levels, create parks and outdoor access, mitigate heat, or fund wildfire prevention programs.

But the measure reads more like a shopping list than a smart policy proposal. Proposal 4 would distribute money to just about 100 different programs. There isn’t any prioritization or evaluation of what would offer the very best value for money.

In fact, the state has spent a median of $13 billion per 12 months on natural resources and climate change mitigation over the past decade. According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's OfficeAbout 15% of this comes from borrowing in the shape of bonds.

Since 2000, California voters have approved eight other measures which have allowed the state to issue bonds for environmental projects totaling $29 billion. But that's not free money. The state's annual payment for environmental bonds is currently about $1.4 billion.

Proposal 4 would increase these payments by an extra $400 million annually for the following 40 years. This is a committed expenditure that comes from the already tight federal budget, crowding out funding for other programs.

Of course, as climate change increases, we also need to deal with environmental issues. If Proposition 4 were designed to fund essential long-term projects that warrant long-term borrowing, we could be the primary to support it, just as we now have supported environmental bond programs prior to now.

But that's not the case here. Rather, Proposition 4 is split into eight different spending categories – each of which is in turn divided into roughly five to 25 spending allocations – which are more aimed toward appeasing political constituencies than ensuring efficient and effective allocation of precious funds.

Proposition 4 was originally imagined to promise even more cash, however the $10 billion limit was set when Newsom announced he would only support $20 billion in bonds on the ballot, with the opposite half going to the poorly designed Proposition 2, which might proceed a failed school constructing program.

Perhaps at one other time, when the state has numerous money, Californians might be more permissive. But for now, voters should only consider a plan that has been rigorously crafted to provide essentially the most cost-effective results possible. That isn’t what this measure is about.

Voters should make it clear they need improvement. They should reject Proposition 4.

policy

Two members of the US House of Representatives initially urged the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to analyze the health risks of hair straighteners, that are used primarily by black women, in 2023. Now they’re asking the agency why it has twice postponed its planned date for proposing a ban on products containing formaldehyde, which studies have shown to guide to increased cancer rates.

Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Shontel Brown of Ohio urged the FDA in a letter to finalize the proposed rule banning certain hair straighteners for salon and residential use. Rep. Nydia Velazquez of New York joined Pressley and Brown in signing the letter, which is dated Tuesday.

The FDA announced a possible rule for 2023 and had initially set an April goal date for publishing the proposal. The date was then pushed back to July after which to September.

The letter from Pressley, Brown and Velazquez – all of whom are running for re-election this 12 months – asks FDA Commissioner Robert Califf to offer specific reasons for the delay.

Pressley told the Associated Press that one reason black women seek hair straightening treatments is because they face discrimination due to their hair.

“If you Google unprofessional hairstyles for work right now, you're inundated with images of black women,” said Pressley, who also believes further delay may lead to more health issues for communities of color. “Everything from protective hairstyles, Senegalese twists or braids like I wore for many years, to Afros or locs… I just want everyone to be able to show up fully, authentically, with no regrets, without fear, without discrimination.”

It's not unusual for the FDA to have issues on its regulatory agenda for years. For example, a draft of a proposed ban on menthol cigarettes was released in 2022, however the deadline for finalizing the rule was pushed back twice before being postponed indefinitely in April.

When asked in regards to the letter, an FDA spokesperson told AP that officials would respond on to lawmakers. Last month, the agency said the proposed ban was still one among its top priorities and was within the legislative process, but couldn’t comment to AP on the timing or content of the proposal.

Black women and ladies of other ethnicities have been using chemical hair straightening treatments for a long time, and lots of the straighteners, creams and keratin treatments contain formaldehyde – a chemical utilized in pesticides and to preserve dead bodies.

A 2022 study from the National Institutes of Health found that folks who used hair straighteners had an increased risk of developing uterine cancer. A 2023 study from Boston University found that postmenopausal women who used hair straighteners most steadily had a greater than 50% increased risk of uterine cancer than women who used them rarely.

Thousands of lawsuits allege that cosmetic firms that make a number of the hair straighteners misrepresented the products' “health effects” and exposed plaintiffs to chemicals that increased the danger of uterine and ovarian cancer. Some also claim they became infertile after using the products.

In an October social media video, the FDA reminded that there is no such thing as a ban yet and that the agency plans to work with the cosmetics industry to encourage them to develop alternative hair straightening products.