>> Braude: TONIGHT ON "GREATER BOSTON:" WE KICK OFF OUR WEEK OF DEBATES ON THE BALLOT QUESTIONS YOU'LL DECIDE IN NOVEMBER.

FIRST UP, QUESTION ONE, THE SO-CALLED FAIR SHARE AMENDMENT, OR MILLIONAIRE'S TAX.

BOTH SIDES MAKE THEIR CASE.

PLUS, THE N.F.L.

IS CHANGING CONCUSSION PROTOCOL AGAIN AFTER MIAMI DOLPHINS' QUARTERBACK TUA TAGOVAILOA'S TWO SERIOUS HITS TO THE HEAD LAST WEEK.

BUT, ARE THEY DOING ENOUGH?

FORMER HARVARD FOOTBALL PLAYER, PRO-WRESTLER, AND CO-FOUNDER OF B.U.

'S C.T.E.

CENTER, CHRIS NOWINSKI JOINS ME WITH A LAUNDRY LIST OF THE FAILURES HERE.

♪♪ >> BRAUDE: ONE SIDE CALLS IT THE FAIR SHARE AMENDMENT.

THE OTHER, THE MILLIONAIRE'S TAX, OR THE TAX HIKE AMENDMENT.

AND, ON YOUR BALLOTS NEXT MONTH, IT'LL BE CALLED QUESTION 1.

WHATEVER YOU CALL IT, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISAGREEMENT ON WHAT KIND OF EFFECTS IT WOULD HAVE ON OUR STATE.

BUT, BEFORE WE GET INTO THE DEBATE, LET'S LAY OUT THE FACTS: A "YES" VOTE WOULD, ACCORDING TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S INFORMATION FOR VOTERS "AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL 4% TAX ON THAT PORTION OF INCOMES OVER $1 MILLION, TO BE USED, SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, ON EDUCATION AND TRANSPORTATION."

A "NO" VOTE, OF COURSE, WOULD KEEP THINGS JUST AS THEY ARE.

I'M JOINED NOW BY DAN CENCE FOR THE COALITION TO STOP THE TAX HIKE AMENDMENT, AND STEVE CRAWFORD, FOR THE FAIR SHARE MASSACHUSETTS CAMPAIGN.

DAN, STEVE, GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE.

WHY SHOULD WE VOTE YES?

>> BECAUSE IT WILL MAKE THE TAX SYSTEMNARY AND PROVIDE MORE MONEY FOR TRANSPORTATION AND EDUCATION.

NOW THE WEALTHIEST PAY A SMALLER SHARE IN TAXES THAN THE REST OF US.

THAT'S NOT FAIR.

TO FIX THAT, WE NEED TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION, AND BY AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION, WE PROTECT THAT MONEY SPECIFICALLY FOR TRANSPORTATION AND EDUCATION.

>> Braude: SO FAIRNESS, TRANSPORTATION AND EDUCATION.

DOESN'T GET MORE BETTER THAN THAT.

>> ALL NOBLE ENDEAVORS.

>> Braude: WHY NO.

SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION, AS A POINT YOU MADE THERE, IS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT ONE.

>> Braude: WHAT DOES IT MEAN.

IT MEANS THE LEGISLATURE AS WRITTEN HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO IS THE ONLY GROUP THAT CAN APPROPRIATE FUNDS.

SO, THEREFORE, THIS MONEY, YES, WHEN RAISED, WILL GO TO TRANSPORTATION AND EDUCATION.

IT WILL NOT RAISE ANY FUNDING TOWARD EDUCATION AND TRANSPORTATION.

>> Braude: WHY DO YOU SAY?

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO, SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS.

WHEN THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH SEES FIT EVERY YEAR AND ARE VERY GOOD AT DOING SO IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE NEEDS ARE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, THEY ALLOCATE FUNDS WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GOING.

RELATIVE TO EDUCATION, WE'RE SIXTH IN THE NATION WITH FUNDING.

RELATIVE TO TRANSPORTATION, PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FUNDING COMING DOWN FOR TRANSPORTATION, SO THE LEGISLATURE WILL SPEND WHERE THE GREATEST NEEDS ARE.

WITH THIS MONEY COMING IN, IT WILL FUND UP TO WHERE THEY APPROPRIATE AND WILL UP TO THEIR DISCRETION -- >> Braude: WILL YOU SUPPORT IT?

>> I DIDN'T BRING THE QUESTION FORWARD.

I'M HERE TO TALK TO THE LANGUAGE.

>> Braude: I'M SURE YOU'VE SEEN THE CENTER FOR STATE POLICY GROUP AT TUFTS -- WELL, YOU MADE A FACE -- BUT SAYING THAT ROUGHLY 30 TO 70% OF THE MONEY THAT YOU MAN DATE HAS TO -- MANDATE HAS TO DO TO TRANSPORTATION AND EDUCATION IS LIKELY TO GO THERE.

SO NOTHING, LIKE YOU SAID, BUT IT'S JUST A PIECE.

>> IT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.

WE UNDERSTAND THE ROLE OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THAT'S WHY WE PUT MITT THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE SURE THE MONEY THE ATTRIBUTED TO THOSE SOURCES.

>> Braude: WHAT IS SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION.

>> IT MEANS THE LEGISLATURE WITHIN THOSE AREAS CAN SAY WE NEED TO FOCUS ON MORE MONEY FOR HIGHER ED, FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE, MORE MONEY TO FIX THE BROKEN BRIDGES AND MAKE SURE PEOPLE AREN'T STUCK IN TRAFFIC AS OUR ECONOMY COMES BACK.

>> Braude: $750 MILLION FOR EDUCATION, WHY CAN'T THEY SAY I'M GOING TO PUT HIS $750 MILLION IN EDUCATION, AND I'M GOING TO TAKE 750 MILLION OUT I CURRENTLY SPEND ON EDUCATION AND SPEND IT ON SOMETHING ELSE THAT MAY BE GOOD BUT NOT THAT.

THEY AREN'T PRECLUDED FROM DOING THAT ARE THEY?

>> RIGHT, BUT OUR CAMPAIGN IS LED BY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS AND OTHER TEACHERS INTERESTED IN THIS.

WE AREN'T JUST GOING TO GO AWAY.

WE'RE SURE THAT MONEY WILL BE ADEQUATE, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE MONEY AND MAKE SURE THE LEGISLATURE UPHOLDS THEIR COMMITMENT THEY MADE.

>> Braude: THE MASS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF PRIMARY AND OTHERS HAVE A LOT OF POWER.

I USED TO BE A LOBBYIST ON BEACON HILL.

THEY HAVE A LOT OF POWER UP THERE.

IF TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE SPENT BETWEEN THE TWO CAMPAIGNS, THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT THE ISSUE IS.

IT'S NOT AN ARCANE THING ON THE BALLOT.

THEY VOTE YES.

THE LEGISLATURE WILL HAVE THE GOAL TO SAY WE'LL DISREGARD WHAT THE INTENT OF THE VOTERS WAS.

>> WE CAN DISCUSS TO THAT POINT.

THAT'S TALK WHY THE UNION IS DOING THIS, TO WHAT ADVANTAGE, THEY'RE RAISING MORE MONEY TO GO INTO THE SYSTEM.

THEY'RE FUNDING IT.

THERE HAS TO BE RETURNED.

HOUR LEGISLATURE UNDERSTANDS OUR NEED.

WE HAVE A SURPLUS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

THEY'RE GIVING BACK 3 BILLION.

SOME WOULD SAY IF THIS WERE ACTIVE TODAY THIS MONEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK.

SO WE DON'T NEED IT.

HOW ARE THEY GOING TO RAISE MONEY TO THAT END.

THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER ADVOCACY GROUPS WHO WOULD LOVE TO PULL AT THAT MONEY.

>> Braude: -- FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, A BALLOT QUESTION, A LAW EARMARKED MONEY TO CIGARETTE-RELATED DIMINUTION OF SMOKING THINGS, THEY DIVERTED THAT MONEY -- >> TO REPEAT MYSELF.

>> Braude: FEEL FREE.

THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

THIS ISN'T A BALLOT QUESTION, THIS ISN'T A REGULAR LAW THAT GETS PASSED IN THE LEGISLATURE, THIS GOES INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

IT IS AS PROTECTED AS YOU CAN GET.

>> I CAN AGREE WITH HIM, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO INCREASE ANY FUNDING.

IT'S A SHELL GAME.

>> Braude: IT DOESN'T HAVE TO.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO.

>> Braude: DO YOU AGREE IT DOES HAVEN'T TO?

>> CORRECT, BUT THERE'S A POLITICAL PROCESS THAT DOESN'T END WHEN THIS GETS PASSED.

>> Braude: UPPED.

LET'S MOVE TO THE TAX THING.

MAKE THE CASE FOR TAX EQUITY, TAX FAIRNESS.

WHY IS THE TAX POLICY PART OF THIS GOOD POLICY.

>> BECAUSE THE STATISTIC I USED BEFORE, THE RICH PEOPLE IN MASSACHUSETTS PAY LESS THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN TAXES.

THAT'S PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WE THINK IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.

IT WILL PROVIDE MORE MONEY, AND MAKE MORE EQUITABLE SOCIETY THAT -- SO THAT WHERE YOUR KID GOES TO SCHOOL AND THE QUALITY EDUCATION THEY GET DOESN'T DEPEND ON THE ZIP CODE.

>> Braude: BEFORE YOU DO THAT -- YOU ASK THE QUESTION.

>> IF WE HAVE A FLAT TAX OF 4%, THE MORE MONEY YOU MAKE, THE MORE TAXES YOU PAY.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT COULD BE MORE FAIR.

>> Braude: THE VAST MAJORITY OF STATES HAVE PROGRESSIVE -- >> THAT'S DIFFERENT QUESTION.

FIFTY% OF THE RESIDENTS IN MASSACHUSETTS DON'T PAY INCOME TAX AT ALL.

>> Braude: THEY WON'T BE AFFECTED BY THIS EITHER.

>> UNDERSTOOD.

>> Braude: WHAT WAS THE POINT YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE?

>> WE HAVE A FLAT TAX OF 5%.

THE WAY THIS BILL WOULD WORK, IF YOU MAKE LESS THAN ONE DOLLAR MILLION A YEAR, IT'S NOT GOING TO COST YOU A PENNY MORE.

IF YOU MAKE MORE THAN ONE DOLLAR MILLION, YOU'RE GOING TO PAY AN EXTRA 4% ON YOUR SECOND MILLION AND ANY MILLION AFTER THAT.

GOOD FOR YOU.

BUT THE MILLIONAIRES I TALK TO, AND I DON'T KNOW MANY, THEY'RE, LIKE, OKAY, THAT'S FAIR.

>> Braude: I BET YOU DO KNOW MANY.

(LAUGHTER) >> KARL?

COME ON.

>> Braude: I WANT TO PLAY THE FIRST AD FROM THE VOTE NO COALITION FOR YOU.

HERE IT IS.

>> POLITICIANS ARE PUSHING A TAX HIKE ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT.

THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

>> OUR STATE ALREADY HAS THE BIGGEST BUDGET SURPLUS IN HISTORY.

>> BUT QUESTION ONE WOULD NEARLY DOUBLE THE INCOME TAX RATE.

>> ON TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

>> FAMILY FARMERS.

AND HOMEOWNERS.

POLITICIANS AREN'T JUST TAXING ANNUAL SALARIES.

>> THEY WOULD ALSO TAX THE SALE OF SMALL BUSINESSES AND HOMES IN MASSACHUSETTS.

>> VOTE NO.

>> Braude: SHIRLEY YOUNG IN "THE GLOBE" WROTE ABOUT THIS.

I HADN'T HEARD THE TIME BEFORE -- ONE-TIME MILLIONAIRES.

A BUSINESS OWNER SELLS THEIR BUSINESS, SOMEBODY SELLS THEIR HOUSE, THAT KIND OF THING, AND THEY'RE NOT REGULARLY EARNING MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

YOU CAN'T LAUGH A AT MY QUESTION.

>> NO.

>> Braude: AND ONE TIME, AND YOU'RE APPARENTLY GOING TO TAKE AWAY WHATEVER.

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT?

>> I ARGUED WITH SHIRLEY BEFORE SHE WROTE THE COMMENT.

THIS IS A COMMENT SCARE TACTIC THAT LOBBYISTS FOR WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN THE STATE USE.

THEY SAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO SELL YOUR HOUSE FOR ONE DOLLAR MILLION, THEY SUGGEST YOU'RE GOING TO PAY THIS TAX.

NOT TRUE.

YOU WILL HAVE TO SELL YOUR HOUSE A FOR A LOT MORE THAN ONE DOLLAR MILLION TO PROFIT FROM THE TAX.

WHAT YOU BOUGHT THE HOUSE WITH DOESN'T COUNT, THE MORTGAGE DOESN'T COUNT, IF YOU ARE MARRIED YOU CAN WRITE UT LESS THAN 1%.

.06% OF THE HOUSES SOLD IN 2021 EARNED MORE THAN ONE DOLLAR MILLION, ACCORDING TO THE WARREN GROUP, THE GOLD STANDARD ON REAL ESTATE SALES IN MASSACHUSETTS.

>> Braude: YOU'RE SMILING, ALSO.

>> YEAH.

>> Braude: IT SEEMS TO ME, I DID A LITTLE INDEPENDENT RESEARCH HERE, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED, SOAKED ONE-TIME MILLIONAIRES, THERE ARE SOME.

IT'S A SMALL IN YOUR OPINION.

>> NOT RELATIVE TO THOSE AFFECTED.

>> Braude: HOW MANY ARE AFFECTED OVERALL.

>> EVERY YEAR.

HOW MANY AFFECTED.

FIFTY%50% WILL BE AFFECTED.

>> Braude: WHAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED BY THIS TAX?

>> HOUSING SALES?

>> Braude: NO, OVERALL, MAKING OVER ONE DOLLAR MILLION A YEAR AND, AS A RESULT, HAVE TO PAY TAX.

>> THAT CHANGES EVERY YEAR.

>> Braude: ROUGHLY.

I DON'T WANT TO ESTIMATE.

>> Braude: OKAY, CONTINUE.

JIM, IF WE COULD THROW A ROCK FROM WHERE WE'RE SITTING HERE, HOW MANY MULTI-MILLION-DOLLAR HOMES WOULD WE HIT?

THIS BRIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE, ACROSS THE RIVER.

HOUSING PRICES ARE ONLY GOING UP, AND IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE A HOME BE WORTH ALL THAT MONEY, AND OVER 90% OF RESIDENTS IN MASSACHUSETTS, THEIR GREATEST EQUITY THAT THEY HAVE -- I'M SORRY, THE GREATEST ASSET IS THE EQUITY IN THEIR HOME.

SO WHEN THEY GO TO RETIRE OR PASS IT TO THEIR CHILDREN OR GO AND SELL AND DOWNSIZE AND HAVE THAT TO BE THE NEST EGG, THEY'LL PAY 80% MORE TAXES ON THE SALE -- >> THAT'S NOT TRUE.

I'LL JUST USE THE METAPHOR THAT YOU USE.

YOU HAVE TO LIVE IN DOVER OR MARTHA'S VINEYARD FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSES TO BE WORTH A MILLION DOLLARS.

THE IDEA -- THERE WAS JUST A STORY -- >> Braude: LET HIM FINISH.

THERE WAS A STORE IN THE BOSTON BUSINESS JOURNAL, SURPRISED YOU MISSED THAT, THEY LISTED THE NAMES OF THE TOWNS.

YOU HAVE TO EARN A LOT MORE THAN JUST A MILLION DOLLARS TO GET -- SELL YOUR HOUSE FOR A LOT MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS TO BE IMPACTED BY THIS TAX, AND YOU KNOW THAT.

THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THE TAX ARE ALREADY MAKING A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

>> FIFTY% OF THEM, IT'S THE ONLY TIME IT WILL EVER HAPPEN IN THEIR LIFE.

SEVENTY% HAPPENS TWICE.

>> Braude: IS IT THE CAMPAIGN'S POSITION, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, HIGHER TAXES THE HIGHER INCOME YOU GO, THE MAJORITY OF STATES ARE ALL ON THE WRONG TRACK, HAVING A FLAT RATE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU MAKE YOU PAY THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME, WHICH IS A LOT MORE PAINFUL TO A LOW-INCOME PERSON THAN A WEALTHY PERSON -- >> WHY?

>> Braude: BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT MORE DISPOSABLE INCOME THAN A POOR PERSON.

LET ME ASK, IS THE CONCEPT OF PROGRESSIVE TAXATION ANATHEMA TO THE NO CAMPAIGN?

>> THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS SINCE 1962 HAVE HAD THE OPTION FIVE TIMES AND VOTED IT DOWN 2 TO 1.

>> Braude: AXE AT THIS 71 TO 29 LAST TIME.

I WAS LEADING THE CAMPAIGN.

>> WHAT DAN IS ARGUING IS THAT THEIR CAMPAIGN IS FUNDED BY -- MOST OF THEIR MONEY COMES FROM FIVE BIRLS IN MASSACHUSETTS.

AND WHAT HE'S SAYING, AND IT IS FAIR FOR THEM TO PAY THE SAME AMOUNT AS SOMEBODY WHO MAKES $25,000 OR $35,000.

>> Braude: NOT SAME AMOUNT, SAME PERCENT.

WHO FUNDS YOUR CAMPAIGN.

>> MASSACHUSETTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS.

WE'VE GOT HUNDREDS OF INDEPENDENT DONORS, INCLUDING MYSELF.

>> Braude: DAN, ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE READ OR HEARD FROM THEOPONENTS IS IF THE TAX RATE IS RAISED ON THOSE MAKING A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, SOME SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE WILL LEAVE THE STATE.

WHEN I DID TAX STUFF FOR A LIVING, WHAT THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN BUSINESS TOLD ME IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO THEM IS WE HAVE A HIGHLY EDUCATED WORKFORCE, THAT WE HAVE ROADS ON WHICH WE CAN GET GOODS TO MARKET, AND THAT IS IN THE LANGUAGE THE FOCUS OF THE QUESTION.

YOU DON'T THINK THAT WILL OUTWEIGH AN EXTRA $40,000 IF SOMEONE MAKES TWO DOLLARS MILLION A YEAR?

>> THE EFFECT ON THE WEALTHY IS A RED HERRING.

THIS IS ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, FARMERS, RETIREES AND MIDDLE THE UBER WEALTHY PROBABLY DOM DOMICILE IN FLORIDA.

>> Braude: WHO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

>> MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE.

>> Braude: A PERSON MAKING MORE THAN ONE DOLLAR MILLION A YEAR IS A MIDDLE CLASS BEFORE?

>> IN MASSACHUSETTS, IF YOU SELL YOUR BUSINESS OR YOUR FARM OR -- >> Braude: IT'S A CONCERN OF A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE OBJECTIVE.

>> PEOPLE STAY HERE BECAUSE THEY GREW UP HERE, THEIR FAMILY IS HERE.

A FRIEND OF MINE SAID IF THE PILGRIMS LANDED IN CALIFORNIA, MASSACHUSETTS WOULD BE A NATIONAL PARK.

THIS IS A NICE PLACE TO LIVE AND THAT'S WHY PEOPLE STAY.

THAT THREAT TO MILLIONAIRES WHO ARE THE LEAST COST EFFECTIVE PEOPLE, COST SENSITIVE -- >> Braude: WHAT DO YOU MEAN COST SENSITIVE.

>> THE COST SENSITIVE GROUP WON'T MOVE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PAY AN EXTRA 4% ON THE MORTGAGE.

>> Braude: DON'T YOU ANSWER THAT DIFFERENTLY NOW THAN BEFORE THE PANDEMIC?

A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE A LOT OF MONEY, A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MONEY WORK REMOTELY.

>> I DON'T THINK THEY PROVED OUT OF STATE.

SOME PEOPLE DID.

SOME PEOPLE MOVED TO VERMONT OR NEW HAMPSHIRE FOR A LITTLE WHILE.

THEY MOVE BACK HERE.

>> Braude: THIS IS NOT A LAW CHANGE.

IF YOU CHANGE THE LAW, THE LEGISLATURE CAN AMEND IT IN ANY WAY TO MAKE IT BETTER OR WORSE.

ONCE YOU'VE AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION, IF YOU SUCCEED, THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE CHANGED, OBVIOUSLY, IS IF YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN WHICH IS A MULTI-YEAR PROCESS.

>> RIGHT.

>> Braude: TELL US WHY YOU THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING THAT IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION.

>> FIRST OF ALL IT ADDRESSES THE CONCERN PEOPLE HAVE WITH THE LEGISLATURE BEING ABLE TO FIDDLE WITH THE MONEY, WE GET THAT ARGUMENT.

BUT THE 5% FLAT TAX WAS ESTABLISHED 100 YEARS AGO BY AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.

WE THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF A PROCESS OF BEING IN A DEMOCRACY AND WE THINK IT'S TIME TO BE UPDATED.

>> Braude: OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR A HIGHER RATE.

AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, YOU THINK IT'S GOOD TO BE LOCKED IN.

>> I REGRET TO USE THE TERM LOCKBOX BECAUSE OF THE PERSON WHO USED IT BEFORE.

>> Braude: ALMOST PRESIDENT GORE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

HOW ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE.

FORGET THE MERITS OF THE QUESTION.

>> SURE.

>> Braude: THE ISSUE OF THE LANGUAGE BEING IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND FOR BETTER OR WORSE, DEPENDING ON ONE'S POINT OF VIEW, OBVIOUSLY ONE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A MULTI-YEAR PROCESS TO CHANGE IT.

IS THAT A GOOD OR BAD THING.

>> A BAD THING.

>> Braude: WHY.

FIVE DIFFERENT TILES THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS AGREED WITH ME AND VOTED IT DOWN 2 TO 1 THAT THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A BAD THING AS WELL.

>> WE'RE NOT ESTABLISHING A GRADUATED INCOME TAX.

WE'RE SIMPLY SAYING, IF YOU EARN MORE THAN ONE DOLLAR MILLION, YOU WILL PAY 5% MORE.

>> IT'S THE DEFINITION OF A GRADUATED TAX.

>> NO.

>> Braude: JIM, LAST WORD.

I'M ALL FOR FAIRNESS AND PEOPLE PAYING WHAT'S RIGHT TO MOVE OUR STATE FORWARD WITHOUT QUESTION.

THIS THING HAS HAD TO MANIPULATE ITSELF CERTAIN WAYS BECAUSE IT'S TAKEN SO MANY YEARS TO GET TO THIS POINT, TO THE POINT NOW THAT THE SCOPE OF IT, OF WHO IT EFFECTS IN THIS GRAND SCHEME OF WHEN IT AFFECT THEM, NOW WE HAVE THE LARGEST SURPLUS IN MASSACHUSETTS WITH THE PEOPLE COMING OUT OF COVID, WITH SMALL BUSINESSES LOOKING TO RECOVERED AND TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS COMING FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION, IT'S NOT THE RIGHT TIME.

>> Braude: WE NEED A DEDICATED STREAM OF REVENUE TO FIX THE ROADS AND TRANSIT.

TWO DOLLARS BILLION A YEAR CAN ONLY BE SPENT ON THESE AREAS.

YOU CAN'T PLAN ON EMERGENCY FEDERAL MONEY AND BUDGET SURPLUSES.

>> Braude: THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT.

LOVE THAT.

NEXT UP, WE'VE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THE DEVASTATING, LIFE-LONG IMPACTS THAT CAN COME FROM THE TYPE OF HEAD INJURIES THAT ARE ALL TOO COMMON ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD.

IN RESPONSE, THE N.F.L.

PUT SOME SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE-- NONE OF WHICH, IT SEEMS, WERE FOLLOWED WHEN MIAMI DOLPHINS QUARTERBACK TUA TAGOVAILOA HIT HIS HEAD HARD ON THE FIELD DURING A GAME AGAINST THE BUFFALO BILLS LAST SUNDAY.

HE TRIED TO GET UP AND SHAKE IT OFF, THEN FELL BACK DOWN.

AND YET SOMEHOW, HE RETURNED LATER IN THE GAME, WITH THE DOLPHINS LEADERSHIP SAYING HE PASSED A CONCUSSION EVALUATION DURING HALFTIME.

AND THEN HE PLAYED AGAIN THURSDAY, JUST FOUR DAYS LATER, AND TOOK A MASSIVE HIT MIDWAY THROUGH THE GAME THAT RESULTED IN HIS BEING CARTED OFF THE FIELD IN A STRETCHER.

HE WAS LATER DIAGNOSED WITH A CONCUSSION.

AND, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT WAS A MOMENT MY NEXT GUEST, CONCUSSION LEGACY FOUNDATION CO-FOUNDER AND C.E.O.

CHRIS NOWINSKI, SAW COMING, TWEETING BEFORE THE GAME: "IF TUA TAKES THE FIELD TONIGHT, IT'S A MASSIVE STEP BACK FOR #CONCUSSION CARE IN THE N.F.L.

IF HE HAS A SECOND CONCUSSION THAT DESTROYS HIS SEASON OR CAREER, EVERYONE INVOLVED WILL BE SUED AND SHOULD LOSE THEIR JOBS-- COACHES INCLUDED."

AND AFTERWARD, HE WROTE, "I TAKE NO PLEASURE IN BEING RIGHT.

PRAY FOR TUA.

WE SAW THIS COMING."

CHRIS NOWINSKI JOINS ME NOW.

HE'S ALSO A FORMER ALL-IVY HARVARD FOOTBALL PLAYER, PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER, NEUROSCIENTIST, AND CO-FOUNDER OF B.U.

'S C.T.E.

CENTER.

CHRIS, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

>> GOOD TO SEE YOU, JIM.

>> Braude: SO WHEN YOU WERE WATCHING THE GAME ON SUNDAY, AND YOU SAW THE HIT AND YOU SAW TUA'S REACTION, WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST REACTION?

>> MY REACTION WAS, OH, GOOD, EVERYONE SAW HOW OBVIOUS THIS CONCUSSION WAS SO HE'S GOING TO BE OUT.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT THE PROTOCOL IS HERE, BUT WE'VE LEARNED AND WON'T SEE HIM THE REST OF THE GAME.

>> Braude: WHEN YOU HEARD IT WAS ALLEGEDLY SOME BACK TWEAK OR SOME SUCH THING, HOW DID YOU REACT TO THAT?

>> I WAS VERY ANGRY AND PROBABLY FOR THE FIRST TIME, I IMPLIED A SWEAR WORD ON MY TWITTER RESPONSE SAYING THIS IS ABSURD, WHAT ARE THEY DOING.

IFLGHT VERY CONFIDENT THIS WAS A CONCUSSION YOU CAN DIAGNOSE FROM YOUR COUCH AND LUCKILY THE REST OF THE WORLD APPEARS TO AGREE WITH ME NOW.

>> Braude: OKAY, SO FOUR DAYS LATER IS THE THURSDAY NIGHT GAME WHICH, UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT OF US SAW BECAUSE OF THE INCREDIBLY PAINFUL SCENE.

I READ A TWEET YOU WROTE SAYING EVERYBODY INVOLVED SHOULD LOSE THEIR JOBS.

WHO IS CULPABLE IN THIS.

>> FIRST, THE MEDICAL STAFF.

WHILE THEY HAVE FIRED THE UNAFFILIATED NEUROTRAUMA CONSULTANT, IT'S NOT THAT PERSON'S CALL, IT'S ACTUALLY THE TEAM DOCTOR'S ALL.

SO I'M VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE EXPERIENCE AND SKILLS OF THIS TEAM DOCTOR AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT PERSON WON'T BE THERE AT THE END OF THE SEASON OR RENEWED NEXT SEASON.

THE COACH, THE OTHER MESSAGE WE'RE TRYING TO GET OUT THERE IS WE CAN RECOGNIZE CONCUSSIONS NOW.

EVERYBODY IN FOOTBALL KNOWS WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE WHO HAVE HAD THEM, FOR THE COACHING STAFF NOT TO STEP IN AND SAY THAT DIAGNOSIS IS NOT RIGHT, OUR FRANCHISE HAS BEEN HAVING A GREAT SEASON, THEY SHOULD HAVE PULLED HIM OUT, AND I'VE SEEN A LOT OF COACHES SAYING, YEAH, YOU TREAT HIM LIKE YOUR SON AND DON'T HUT HIM BACK.

THE LEADERSHIP OF THE TEAM KNOW THAT'S A CONCUSSION, THEY WERE WATCHING THE GAME.

THE REASON I PREDICTED IT, I WASN'T GOING SAY ANYTHING, BUT THE N.F.L.

WAS PROMOTING THE GAME SAYING IT'S THE TWO HOT QUARTERBACKs.

I THOUGHT THE N.F.L.

WAS AT LEAST SMART ENOUGH TO CALL THE DOLPHINS AND SAY THAT WAS CLEARLY A CONCUSSION.

BUT THEY PROMOTED IT.

SO THE VEIL IS LIFTED THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE PLAYERS AND THEIR HEALTH, THE N.F.L.

IS TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFIT AND TRY TO REACH GOALS AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET HURT IN THE PROCESS UNLESS WE STEP UP AND FIGHT BACK.

>> Braude: YOU KNOW, SPEAKING OF THE COACH -- YOU HEARD IT, TOO -- SOMETHING HE SAID AFTER THURSDAY'S GAME, HE COULD NOT BE THIS STUPID -- I'M SERIOUS.

THIS IS MIKE McDANIEL, PART OF WHAT HE HAD TO SAY AFTER THE SECOND CONCUSSION THE THURSDAY NIGHT'S GAME.

>> THE BEST NEWS THAT WE COULD GET IS EVERYTHING HAS CHECKED OUT THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY -- ANYTHING MORE SERIOUS THAN A CONCUSSION.

>> Braude: THE BEST NEWS IS HE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING MORE SERIOUS THAN A CONCUSSION?

>> I'VE SOFTENED A TAD ON MY STANCE ON THAT BECAUSE I WAS VERY AGGRESSIVE ON THAT.

>> Braude: WHY DID YOU SOFTEN?

IF YOU SAW THE MECHANISM OF HIS FALL, IF YOU SAW HIM BACKBOARDED, YOU WOULD THINK YOU'RE BACKBOARDED WAS HE HAD A NECK INJURY.

SEEING HIM FALL STRAIGHT BACK, THERE'S A CHANCE OF A NECK INJURY.

BUT NOW I'M THINKING HE'S REFERRING TO THE POSTURINGS, SO HE LOOKED LIKE A STROKE VICTIM WHEN HE CLINCHED HIS HANDS BECAUSE HIS CORTEX WAS THAT DAMAGED BECAUSE HE LOOKED LIKE HE WAS HAVING A STROKE.

I GUESS HE WAS CONFUSED BY THAT NOT BEING A BRAIN INJURY.

SO THAT WAS JUST A SIGN OF A BRAIN INJURY.

THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME WOULD BE A BRAIN INJURY, BUT THAT'S WHAT HE HAD, BUT MAYBE HIS LACK OF MEDICAL EXPERIENCE INFLUENCED HIM.

EVERYTHING HE IS' SAYING MAKES NO SENSE AND IT'S LIKE HE NEVER HEARD OF CONCUSSIONS.

>> YOU'RE KINDER THAN I AND YOU KNOW MORE THAN I DO, TOO.

AFTER THE GAME, HE'S DESCRIBING HOW THEY ROAD BACK ON THE PLANE TOGETHER, HIM AND TUA.

THEY'RE TALKING AND LAUGHING AND ALL OF A SUDDEN TUA STARTS WATCHING A MOVIE ON HIS PHONE.

EVEN THOUGH I KNOW NO SCREEN TIME IS PART OF THE PROTOCOL ONCE YOU'VE HAD A CONCUSSION AND, PATRONLY, HE -- APPARENTLY, HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT OR DIDN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT IT.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF HE KNEW THAT.

PEOPLE'S EXPECTATIONS FOR CONCUSSIONS ARE NOT ALWAYS APPROPRIATE, SO ALWAYS ASSUME IF YOU HAD A CONCUSSION YOU WOULD BE GROGGY, SAD, LOOK LIKE SOMEONE WHO'S HURT, BUT THOSE OF US WHO HAVE HAD THEM KNOW THERE ARE OFTENTIMES WHEN PEOPLE ARE KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS FOR A MINUTE OR TWO, POP UP, SWEAR THEY'RE FINE AND DON'T KNOW IF A CONCUSSION EVER HAPPENED.

THAT MIGHT BE THE SITUATION, IF TUA WASN'T AWARE OF HOW BAD HE LOOKED BECAUSE MAYBE HIS MEMORY WAS IMPAIRED, OR ELSE HE'S TRYING TO PUT ON A GOOD FRONT BECAUSE HE'S SCARED TO DEATH OF BEING LABELED A CONCUSSION GUY WHICH MEANS HE MAY NOT BE RESIGNED OF MAXIMIZE HIS CONTRACT BECAUSE THE TIME WILL BLAME HIM FOR GETTING IF CONCUSSION WHEN IT WAS THE TEAM AND THE LEAGUE WHO PUT HIM IN THIS BAD SPOT.

>> Braude: YOU'VE WORKED ON THE FIELD AS A RESULT OF THE WORK YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE.

I AS A CONSUMER SAY THEY'RE NOT TO BE TRUSTED AT ALL.

THEY JUST CARE ABOUT GETTING THE BEST PLAYERS BACK ON THE FIELD AS BEST AS THEY CAN AND LET THEIR HEALTH BE DAMNED.

IS THAT UNFAIR?

>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

IN THIS SITUATION, IT'S A REMINDER THAT THE INCENTIVES ARE NOT ALIGNED AND THE 1/2 PREFER TO HAVE THEIR STARS ON THE FIELD RATHER THAN HAVING PROPER CONCUSSION CARE.

WE'VE KNOWN THAT FOREVER.

WE THOUGHT IT WAS GETTING BETTER.

THIS IS A REMINDER THAT IT'S NOT.

I ALWAYS HAVE TO SAY, THOUGH, I WAS ALREADY ANGRY WITH THE N.F.L.

AT THE START OF THE SEASON, NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE OF CONCUSSION CARE, BUT BECAUSE OF C.T.E.. WE'RE NOW IN A WORLD WHERE THE N.F.L.

ADMITTED THEIR GAME CAUSED THIS DISEASE.

THEY JUST MOVED THE PRO BOWL TO FLAG.

WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO CONVERT YOUTH TACKLE FOOTBALL TO FLAG.

KIDS SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING TACKLE IN HIGH SCHOOL UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

BUT THEY'RE RECRUITING LITTLE KIDS TO TACKLE FOOTBALL AGAIN.

WHEN WILL THEY WAKE UP AND REALIZE THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE -- PLAYING THE ROLE OF THE GRIM REAPER RECRUITING OUR YOUNG CHILDREN TO FOOTBALL BECAUSE IT LOOKS COOL ON TV AND GIVING THEM A BRAIN DISEASE THEY WILL LEAVE THEM IN A DUST WHEN THEY GET BROKEN DOWN.

MY ENTIRE DAY HAVE BEEN ABSORBED BY THE FAMILIES WHO ARE CONNECTING THE DOTS AND FOUND US.

THIS 52-YEAR-OLD EXCANADIAN FOOTBALL PLAYER WHOSE WIFE IS DESPERATE BECAUSE HE'S A MESS AND THAT THE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PLAY TOO MUCH FOOTBALL.

WE HAVE TO BE HONEST ABOUT IT.

>> Braude: YOU SHOWED US A BEAUTIFUL PHOTOGRAPH OF YOUR LITTLE SON AND DAUGHTER, MOST KIDS WATCHING THE SHOW, THEIR DID NOT GOING TO BE A PRO FOOTBALL PLAYER.

WOULD YOU LET YOUR SON PLAY FOOTBALL?

SHOULD THE PARENTS WATCHING THE SHOW LET THEIR KID PLAY FOOTBALL?

QUICKLY.

>> YEAH, THEY'RE NOT PLAYING ANY CONTACT SPORTS TILL THEY'RE 14.

WE STARTED A PROTOCOL STOP HITTING KIDS IN THE HEAD.

NO ONE'S TOUCHING MY KID'S HEAD IN THE HOSPITAL, THEN WE'LL TALK.

>> Braude: THANKS FOR YOUR FABULOUS WORK.

FOOD TO SEE YOU.

THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT, BUT COME BACK TOMORROW.

OUR BALLOT QUESTION DEBATE SERIES CONTINUES WITH QUESTION 2, WHICH WOULD SET A CAP ON HOW MUCH OF YOUR MONEY DENTAL INSURERS CAN SPEND ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

PLUS, THE NATICK COUPLE HARASSED BY EBAY EXECS, THEIR HARASSERS' PRISON SENTENCES, AND WHAT MORE CONSEQUENCES THEY WANT TO SEE OTHERS WHO WERE INVOLVED SUFFER.

TOMORROW AT 7:00.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

AND PLEASE-- DON'T FORGET UKRAINE.

Captioned by Media Access Group at WGBH access.wgbh.org