It’s up. Go to it, y’all.
I’m going to make a bold assertion: BMG can contribute a lot to the budget debate, and we can do it in a different way than anyone else. Yes, there are organizations that are experts on the budget, and they’ll undoubtedly have lots of interesting stuff to say over the coming days and weeks. But none of those organizations has the sheer number of eyeballs that BMG has. And no, not everyone who reads here is an expert on the budget or the budgeting process — but I’d wager there are a lot of folks here who know a good deal about at least a corner or two of it. When we add up all those corners, I bet we can cover a decent chunk of the whole thing.
So let’s turn BMG into a little budget thinktank. Pick out your own area of interest (AmberPaw? pablo? AnnEM? I know you’re out there!), track what’s happening there, and tell us about it. Post a comment here, or if you’re inspired, write up your own post (and be sure to use the tag “budget” if you do so).
This budget is the biggest thing Governor Patrick has done so far, and it, along with the accompanying legislation (corporate tax loopholes, municipal partnership act, etc.), is going to set the tone for the first year or so of his administration. It’s big. It’s worth taking the time to understand it, and to make sure everyone else does too.
UPDATE: Mass. Budget and Policy Center has released their preliminary analysis.
hoyapaul says
A couple things that jumped out — it looks like the promise to deal with HPV immunizations of girls was reflected in the budget, with a big increase in the “universal immunization program” (line-item 4580-1000). One of the biggest percentage increases was in 4590-0300, dealing with smoking cessation, which got almost a 400% increase (!). I hadn’t heard that as a big priority, but I may have missed it.
<
p>
I must say that all of the various consolidations with line-items actually makes it considerably more difficult to compare with last year, and makes it much more difficult to see where the real priorities lie. For example, the Individual Development Accounts (7004-9317) were funded at $500K last year, but now are consolidated into “homelessness prevention” without any indication of how much would be spent on this program. It would give the power to the Administration to figure this out, something we wouldn’t know until it’s actually done. There’s many other examples of that in this budget.
johnk says
I was pulling my hair out figuring out to CORI stuff during the election since Mitt did something similar with crime funding. But it’s not unique to this year and Deval. But want makes this unique is the openness of the budget. I can do a 2 minute review and get this
<
p>
7004-0100 Homelessness Prevention, budgeted FY08 for 37,937,387
<
p>
Click on the Account number and it tells you:
<
p>
<
p>
Each number allows to click for detail of FY07, you add them up and subtract against FY08 and you get an increase of:
<
p>
$2,732,000
<
p>
You could have never done this so easily before.
<
p>
Plus details:
<
p>
<
p>
You are correct that you do not know how much will specifically be spent on Individual Development Accounts. What he did say before the budget went out:
<
p>
<
p>
Doing my math (with calculator of course) 2,732,000 divided by 37,937,387, I get 7 percent.
hoyapaul says
<
p>
Absolutely right, and I didn’t make this clear in my comment. The consolidations were just as extensive (if not more so) in Romney’s budgets, so this is nothing new.
<
p>
And it makes sense from the Administration’s perspective. The ostensible purpose of this consolidation is to “streamline” and reduce costs (which it may), but the real reason is that it gives the Administration more control to appropriate the money in the line-item in the way they wish, rather than have it set by the legislature. So, for example, the IDA program, instead of getting a set amount under the IDA line-item, could get anywhere from 0% to 100% of the money in the homelessness prevention line-item, at the discretion of the Governor. It gives them more control.
<
p>
Whether you think this is a good idea or not is a matter of opinion, but that’s the real reason for the consolidations, not because of “streamlining”.
kai says
I’m glad to see the state getting behind immunizing girls (anyone know why only girls?) from HPV. According to this WaPo story, reprinted in the Globe, more than 1/3 of US women have HPV.
<
p>
This is troubling for any number of reasons. The more serious strains of it can cause cervical cancer, the number one cancer killer of women in the country, and HPV can’t be prevented by prophylactics.
kai says
I’m glad to see the state getting behind immunizing girls (anyone know why only girls?) from HPV. According to this WaPo story, reprinted in the Globe, more than 1/3 of US women have HPV.
<
p>
This is troubling for any number of reasons. The more serious strains of it can cause cervical cancer, the number one cancer killer of women in the country, and HPV can’t be prevented by prophylactics.
heartlanddem says
Here’s a link to the CDC [http://www.cdc.gov/s…]. Progressive move on the HPV vaccines with the finesse of non-mandatory availability. Note however, that the Fact Sheet was last reviewed May 2004. The vaccine is available on some college campuses but pricey…My guess is targeting girls was both fiscally prudent and based in prevention models.
john-howard says
And it happens to an entirely seperate population that won’t be helped by vaccinating girls. This plan will not address deadly anal cancer at all. It’s funny you don’t hear an uproar from gay men about this, I guess they don’t like talking about it.
<
p>
I bet it wouldn’t cost that much more to vaccinate boys too.
<
p>
Did anyone see the letter in the globe by a woman who was offended that they were making the “victims” be vaccinated instead of the “carriers”? Um, dear globe, stop printing such stupid letters, please? Men get HPV too, they don’t manufacture it in their basement wood shops.
david says
has already been discussed in this thread.
heartlanddem says
johnk says
All I can say is WOW!
<
p>
The FY07 and 08 comparisons side by side with the drill down to the full text description of the Account Number with historical breakdowns and pie charts???? Are you kidding me? This is great!!!!
hoyapaul says
The side-by-side comparisons with last year has been done previously, but there’s a lot more information under each line-item than in Romney’s budgets. The pie charts, employement levels (if applicable), and historical spending with breakdowns are all very useful and helpful.
eury13 says
I like all of the linking. It makes things easier.
<
p>
But what would make them even easier would be if the pages for line items that combined multiple other items listed the histories of those individual items and added them up for quick and easy comparison.
<
p>
Other than that, should provide for many hours of riveting reading.
hoss1 says
Just to bring my earlier comment, and its progeny, to this more appropriate thread, let me respond to the comment to my note asserting that these biz taxes have been unjustifiably framed by the business community as taxes. My response: you’re right.
<
p>
Before I go on, here’s a link to the proposed bill. I guess I should read it, and I will shortly, but here’s my premise: the Patrick team handled the messaging of this poorly (surprised?) and that alone could have a significant impact on our hopes of creating jobs, growing tax revenue and providing better governmental services in our state.
<
p>
So what do we do now? I hope that we can put our state’s business leaders out front and utilize another one of the transition report’s suggestions (see #6) and begin to market ourselves more effeciently and effectively.
noternie says
I thought they could have done better with the issue of closing loopholes in terms of packaging/positioning/presenting, too. He should be right up front about saying they are just going to start collecting taxes that should’ve been paid all along. Eliminating a way for companies to say they are A for federal tax purposes but B for state tax purposes to get the best of both worlds seems simply ludicrous.
<
p>
I’m also having trouble with the fuss over the rainy day fund, but it might just be me. No sarcasm here. Every description of the financial situation of the state has included words like dire, bleak, daunting, etc. So why is it cheating or gimmicky to use some of the rainy day funds to offset a defecit? Seriously, if not during dire times, when? Do I not understand the rainy day fund or our current situation? I know if things got bleak at my house and we tapped into the rainy day my wife wouldn’t say we pulled a fast one to pay the mortgage. If I’m missing something, someone please educate me and save me from looking the simpleton.
<
p>
So I continue to have some concern about the media relations team. But I’m rooting for them, not giving up on them.
steverino says
Deval’s media strategy still needs to shift from campaign speed to governing gear.
<
p>
Where was a nice B-roll release of small business owners interviewed about how they feel about paying taxes that Verizon is exempt from?
<
p>
Where was the framing about CEO tax-dodgers outsourcing their corporate tax payments to hard-working Massachusetts families?
gary says
steverino says
here.
shiltone says
It’s a lot for this layperson to absorb, but the presentation is an honest try at transparency. I get a picture of an elected official exercising real stewardship. You can see there were difficult choices that had to be made, some items are reduced, yet some human services items (for example) get modest increases. Often officials talk about making difficult choices, then take the easy way, playing “shell game” with revenues and accounting tactics, or slashing budgets according to who’s got the most/least lobbying power.
<
p>
I don’t know the ultimate impact of all the account consolidations, but it seems like common sense. The most obvious examples are the consolidation of judicial-system administrative expenditures, and the community college system. Does the consolidation of all these individual items help eliminate little pockets of stranded budget capacity, or would it have been possible to move money from one to another as needed anyway? One hopes that at least, some redundancy and overhead is reduced.
<
p>
Regarding the tax changes, it’s refreshing to hear someone address this not just in terms of raising or lowering taxes — the tax crybabies would have you think that taxes are taxes, of course, and they’re not all the same — but in terms of tax fairness, and leveling the playing field for businesses. It’s a simple but compelling case he makes, and it’s difficult to argue that the “unintended” tax benefits — i.e., those not tied to proper incentives or need — shouldn’t go away. I hope the Governor’s talk to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce this morning went well; talk about facing tough challenges!
<
p>
I think this administration is off to a great start, now that we can see what they were up to, while the drama queens and navel-gazers (in the local press, here, and elsewhere) were fretting about Cadillacs and office decor.
dweir says
Bumped up from other thread and updated now that budget details are available.
<
p>
In the 2005-06 school year, there were 68,242 students enrolled in kindergarten.
<
p>
Full-day K may help fulfill the aims of MGL C.71 s.26a (under which school committees are authorized to offer extended services), but it will not improve educational outcomes. As a case in point, BPS has offered full-day K since 1998, yet there is no indication this has resulted in marked improvements.
<
p>
In today’s Globe, Commission of Education David Driscoll addresses part of the problem (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>
One of the problems with these types of initiatives is that the investments are not tracked all the way to student performance. We might know that x-number of students or y-number of communities offer full-day K, but we don’t know how these students are fairing compared to their peers.
<
p>
This money would be better spent, and would have farther reaching impact, were it invested in the state DoE. In 2005, the Rennie Center released a report on the state’s role in improving low-performing districts. One exception that I do take is from their abstract:
<
p>
<
p>
While that may be true at the state level, nationally you need to Google “Project Follow Through” (or see here or for chapter-by-chapter commentary search this site). If it means less local control, if it means less “freedom” (at least as perceived by some) in the classroom, if it will cut the profits of publishers or require a retooling of ed schools, — is it worth it because it works? Or will we continue to fund education on “feel good” initiatives like full-day K, universal pre-school, METCO, only to ask in another 15 years why nothing has changed?
raj says
…full day K, universal pre-school and longer school days be honest and admit that what they really want is government (i.e., taxpayer-supported) daycare.
<
p>
That’s what it really amounts to, doesn’t it?
eury13 says
The less time we can spend with the rugrats, the better. In fact, when the time comes for me to breed I’m going to sign my firstborn over to Deval.
<
p>
There are multiple arguments for longer school-days and full-day kindergarten.
<
p>
– More school = better education. I’m sure it’s not true in every case, but it couldn’t hurt.
<
p>
– More school early = more success later. Again, it’s not the only factor, but it helps.
<
p>
– Yes, single-parent households and households with two working parents will benefit greatly from knowing that their children are in a safe, productive environment while they are at work.
<
p>
But to say that we’re just pushing for taxpayer-funded daycare is a little over-simplistic, methinks.
johnk says
Also, what are school hours, 8:00 – 2:00?
<
p>
You know most people get out at 2:00 from work, no actually make that 1:30 (you need to drive home). Glad the state picks up my daycare. Or school, I get confused!!?!?
raj says
…full day K, longer school days, and universal taxypayer-provided pre-school is nothing more than taxpayer-supported daycare.
<
p>
Let’s understand a few things.
<
p>
One, full day taxpayer-supported K? In Germany, for example, they don’t even have taxpayer-supported K (or pre-school for that matter), and their educational system is at least as good if not better than that of the USofA.
<
p>
Two, longer taxpayer-supported school days? To what end? When I was in high school, they would not allow us to take more than five or so academic subjects at a time, for fear that we would be overloaded, with each class period being something like 45 minutes, and school would let out at 2:30PM. (BTW, 10% of my high school class, in a middle class suburb of Cincinnati, were in AP classes, including me.) After class let out, we’d go home and do our homework (i.e., practice, which is very important in learning).
<
p>
NB: quite frankly, they were correct about the overloading. After I had graduated from high schools and entered university, in my first semester I tried to take seven courses all at the same time (this after having placed out of most of my first year at university with advanced placement credits–at the age of 17), and it was impossible.
<
p>
The point being that the proposal for longer school days isn’t intended to provide more academic instruction, which is what school is intended to provide. It is intended to warehouse kids–maybe to do their homework–before the parents come home. That’s the long and short of it, isn’t it? And as far as I can tell, that is nothing more than taxpayer-supported day care.
<
p>
BTW, the jury is out as to whether taxpayer-supported pre-school (or pre-school at all) means more success later.
<
p>
Let’s cut to the chase. Why don’t you be honest and admit that what you really want is taxpayer-supported daycare? The additional cost to the taxpayers of keeping kids in what amounts to “study hall” isn’t so much. There isn’t going to be any additional instruction involved. Just admit it. What you really want is taxpayer-supported day care. If you were honest, we could discuss that issue.
johnk says
I’m going out on a limb here and say that you do not have any kids in the K and pre-K ages if any at all and have no real idea what goes on in pre-schools or kindergarten classes.
<
p>
First, you do not get homework in kindergarten. Homework normally starts in 1st grade. Kindergarten does have more of an academic focus than in the past. Pre-school for the most part is what kindergarten was when I/we were going to school. Pre-school, while there is some learning (alphabet, numbers, shapes, colors, etc.) is mainly to indoctrinate children socially, take instruction for teachers, etc. This was at one time the role of kindergarten.
<
p>
To say that children would not get any kind of academic instruction on a full class day is insane. Just to opposite, it allows teachers to better flesh out and re-enforce the curriculum through additional exercises and activities. I hope my town is one of those who are interested in pursuing full day kindergarten.
<
p>
Raj – no one works to 2:00pm. Get a clue. It’s not a replacement of daycare.
raj says
…there is no reason for full-day K and extended school hours other than to make public schools day care centers, outside of normal school hours.
<
p>
Is that succinct enough for you?
johnk says
It’s kind of like talking to a wall.
hoyapaul says
<
p>
What are you basing this statement on?
goldsteingonewild says
<
p>
There is a video explaining how the budget was created, interview with A&F head Leslie Kirwan, etc.
<
p>
I haven’t yet watched the video, but I think it’s quite cool that there is a video.
<
p>
Here’s the link
<
p>
Ebert?
<
p>
2. Quick suggestion for Gov’s folks — you have the links backwards on this page. Ie, you click for “Non-tax revenue” and you get “tax revenue”. And vice versa. Easy fix.
afertig says
Reminded me a little of high school specials, but I have to say, it’s a very good intro to the budget. Actually, I think it’d be pretty cool of high schools did show that video in classes today…
afertig says
goldsteingonewild says
I’m trying to understand the “income side” of the ledger (pdf).
<
p>
I’ve re-read this thing a few times, but I’m dense.
<
p>
Revenue will grow by 4.4%
<
p>
So why is there a $1 billion+ deficit?
<
p>
The document says “FY08 Budget starts witha $1-plus Billion Deficit…New, unfunded, and recurring FY07 spending carried forward.”
<
p>
Isn’t a normal deficit if you carry forward “recurring FY07” spending alone…and then you don’t have enough money? Maybe someone could explain “new” and “unfunded” in this context….
jaybooth says
and energy cost inflation, to include a few.
<
p>
That is, take the government last year and push it into a new year without cutting anything, and you have a deficit
goldsteingonewild says
what about “new” and “unfunded”?
jaybooth says
Which comes out to some large sums of money required to tread water.
<
p>
As far as new and unfunded, there are probably things that were appropriated last year and not yet funded, plus a HUGE chunk for the new universal healthcare, if I read the papers right. Haven’t been to the budget website yet.
gary says
I think new is Governor proposed items for fy08 while unfunded is items signed into law in fy07 but not yet funded. Like you said, the healthcare.
<
p>
spreadsheet
<
p>
$579M increase in collections
$290M increase in new Corporate taxes
<
p>
spent on:
<
p>
$200M Increase in local aid
$32M Police
$25M vaccinations program (new)
$24M kindergarten and supportive childcare
$23M smoking and substance abuse prevention
$6.5M Extended learning time grants (WTF?)
<
p>
$558.5 million for some small stuff + built in inflation
<
p>
Pensions + step increases + retiree health insurance is killing the state.
massparent says
Rather of a dissappointment here.
<
p>
Excess effort reduction translates to treating comparable municipalities the same way in terms of chapter 70 funds as well as allocations of required spending to regional schools.
<
p>
Ed funding is a complex mess, in large part because of the combination of the choice to assure that kids from every town receive roughly equally funded education, combined with Prop 2.5 which allows stingy locales to get a free ride of state funds for schools. Last year the gov and legislature decided it was time to try to address some of the discrepancies of funding by moving towards more uniform state funding and regional allocations for locales with comparable wealth. The choice to slow this correction down and add a “pro-ration” for the down-payment aid saves a few million bucks out of the $4 Billion chapter 70 budget, but takes a big step backwards in equalizing funding. And the fact that the total funds still allocated to chapter 70 creep up anyhow, with the average going up by a few tenths of a percent, points out the fallacy of the dollar-saving motive for the change.
<
p>
Meanwhile, on the regional funding side, the change of formulas makes no difference at all on the state’s obligations, but exacerbates existing disparities between towns funding to regional schools rather than moving towards more equal treatment of comparable locales. It means a few more $$$ for some regional schools, but comes at a huge cost of good faith because of disparities of treatment of comparable towns.
<
p>
And this shift pushes transparency for the chapter 70 budget further into the future, rather than continuing on the stated goal of making the formulas simpler and more predictable.
<
p>
Bummer.