25

THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRiDAy, OCTObER 24, 2025 Page 25 BEACON | FROM PAGE 24 diffi culty making ends meet.” The Senate approved the same bill in the 2023-2024 session on October 26, 2023 and sent it to the House Ways and Means Committee where no further action was taken for more than a year and the bill died from inaction on December 31, 2024. Any individual representative in the 2023-2024 session could have acted to try to force the bill out of the Ways and Means Committee but none of the 160 House members did so. Any House member can still do the same anytime during the current 2025-2026 session. Under House rules, any individual representative can move to discharge any and all bills from the Ways and Means Committee. There is a 7-day waiting period prior to the House considering the motion to discharge. The discharge motion must receive a majority vote of the members present. If the measure is discharged from the committee, the committee has four days within which to report out the measure for placement on the House’s agenda for action. A bill may also be discharged from the Ways and Means Committee by any representative by fi ling a petition signed by a majority of the House. The bill would then be discharged seven days later and go onto the House agenda for the next session. However, the Ways and Means Committee is often a burial ground for bills that will never again see the light of day. “Rarely, if ever, does a member go either of those two routes against the wishes of the leadership and the committee chair,” said a state representative who requested anonymity. They told Beacon Hill Roll Call, “It’s no secret that Speaker Mariano controls the fl ow of legislation and a bill makes progress in the House only when he wants it to. Every member knows that one of the biggest sins is to publicly make a motion to discharge a bill from a committee. The leadership frowns upon that.” House Ways and Means Committee chair Aaron Michlewitz (D-Boston); Margaret Ann Ferrnate (D-Gloucester), vice chair of House Ways and Means; Todd Smola (R-Warren), the ranking Republican on the committee; and House Speaker Ron Mariano did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking them to comment on the committee bottling up the bill and killing it. Beacon Hill Roll Call asked Sen. Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), the bill’s sponsor and Sen. Patrick O’Connor (R-Weymouth), a strong supporter of the bill, to comment on the killing of the bill. “I support our House colleagues’ eff orts this session, and in prior ones, to advance this important legislation,” Jehlen responded. O’Connor responded, “Unfortunately, all too often within the legislative process we see bills that would benefi t individuals across the commonwealth not make it across the fi nish line with the other priority bills the House and Senate both have on the docket. With the overwhelming support of [this bill] this session, I am confi dent now more than ever that we will fi - nally be able to get this through the House and I will continue to urge my colleagues in both chambers to get this done.” Spokespersons for two groups that are lobbying for House rules changes, includingpreventing bills from being unilaterally being killed by a committee chair, did not mince words when asked to respond to the death of the bill. “As long as representatives forfeit their power, Michlewitz and a few unknown staffers will keep sorting bills into yes/ no piles behind closed doors,” said Aaron Singer, the producer and director of “Shadows on the Hill,” an upcoming documentary that he says asks why common-sense bills don’t pass the Massachusetts Legislature. “We don’t even know if there are women in that room. The real question is which representative will rally a coalition to rewrite House rules and reclaim the lawmaking process. Without reform, even small disagreements with leadership demand an outsized, confl ict-heavy push.” Scotia Hille, Executive Director of Act on Mass said, “Every session, our elected representatives in the Statehouse allow popular, commonsense legislation like this bill to die without a vote. Unfortunately, they would rather leave our state’s neediest without adequate menstrual care than defy leadership by using their own power to initiate a vote. So long as we allow chamber leaders to control member’s salaries, I fear we will continue to see this pattern unfold. Our legislators should be empowered to act independently and organize their peers behind legislation their constituents need. This situation and unfortunately many others like it motivate Act on Mass to support a reform to legislative stipends.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill.) Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes COMPANIES MUST DISCLOSED INGREDIENTS OF MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS (S 1483) Senate 39-0, approved and sent to the House a proposal that would require manufacturers of menstrual health products to clearly disclose and display a list of ingredients. The ingredients would have to be easily accessible on both retail packages and manufacturers’ websites. “A person who menstruates will use, on average, over 10,000 menstrual products in their lifetime,” said sponsor Sen. Jo Comerford (D-Northampton). “Yet, menstrual products have increasingly been found to contain harmful substances such as PFAS, heavy metals and other toxic chemicals.” “Menstrual equity is not only about making products free— it’s about ensuring those products are safe, high quality and labeled with full ingredient disclosure,” said Sasha Goodfriend, Executive Director of Mass NOW. “We are deeply grateful that the Senate understands that dignity requires both access and accountability. Today’s vote sends a powerful message: menstruators in Massachusetts deserve not just products, but the ability to make informed choices about what products they use for their menstrual health.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill.) Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes EXPAND THE “MOVE OVER” LAW (S 2653) Senate 39-0, approved and sent to the Senate legislation that would require motorists to slow down if they are approaching a stationary utility truck or BEACON | SEE PAGE 26 Sa nr Sa a y Senior Seni by Jim Miller Can You Get a Lump Sum Social Security Payment? Dear Savvy Senior, I’ve read that the Social Security Administration off ers a lumpsum payment to new retirees who need some extra cash. I haven’t yet fi led for my retirement benefi ts and would like to fi nd out if this is true. What can you tell me? Born In 1958 Dear 1958, There is indeed a little-known Social Security claiming strategy that’s been around for many years that can provide retirees a lump-sum benefit, but you need to be past your full retirement age to be eligible, and there are fi nancial drawbacks you need to be aware of too. First, let’s review the basics. Remember that while workers can begin drawing their Social Security retirement benefi ts anytime between ages 62 and 70, full retirement age is 66 and 8 months for those born in 1958, but it rises in two-month increments every birth year to age 67 for those born in 1960 and later. At full retirement age, you are entitled to 100 percent of your benefi ts. But if you claim earlier, your benefi ts will be reduced by 5 to 6.66 percent every year you start before your full retirement age. While if you delay taking your benefi ts beyond your full retirement age, you’ll get 8 percent more each year until age 70. Lump Sum Option If you are past full retirement age, and have not yet fi led for your benefi ts, the Social Security Administration off ers a retroactive lump-sum payment that’s worth six months of benefi ts. Here’s how it works. Let’s say for example that you were planning to delay taking your Social Security benefi ts past your full retirement age of 66 and 8 months, but you changed your mind at 67 and two months. You could then claim a lumpsum payment equal to those six months of benefits. So, for instance, if your full retirement age benefi t was $2,500 per month, you would be entitled to a $15,000 lump sum payment. If you decided at age 67 that you wanted to fi le retroactively, you’d get only four months’ worth of benefi ts in your lump sum, because SSA rules prohibit you from claiming benefi ts that pre-date your full retirement age. Drawbacks The downside to this strategy is that once you accept a lump-sum payment, you’ll lose the delayed retirement credits you’ve accrued, and your future monthly retirement benefi t will be reduced to refl ect the amount you already received. It will also aff ect your future survivor benefi t to your spouse or other eligible family members after you die. You may also need to consider Uncle Sam. Depending on your income, Social Security benefits may be taxable, and a lump-sum payment could boost the amount of benefi ts that are taxed. The federal government taxes up to 50 percent of Social Security benefits at ordinary income tax rates if your combined income – defi ned as adjusted gross income plus nontaxable interest income plus half of your Social Security benefi ts – exceeds $25,000, and up to 85 percent of benefits are taxable if combined income exceeds $34,000. For married couples, the comparable income thresholds for taxing benefi ts are $32,000 and $44,000. To help you calculate this, see IRS Publication 915 “Social Security and Equivalent Railroad Retirement Benefi ts” at IRS.gov/ pub/irs-pdf/p915.pdf, or call 800829-3676 and ask them to mail you a copy. In addition, if the lump-sum payment of retroactive Social Security benefi ts boosts your yearly income over $106,000 (or $212,000 for married couples fi ling jointly), it will increase your future Medicare premiums too. See Medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/11579-medicare-costs.pdf for details. Send your questions or comments to questions@savvysenior.org, or to Savvy Senior, P.O. Box 5443, Norman, OK 73070. nior ior

26 Publizr Home