The balanced budget in this state is a PR shell game. The way it works is that first a “benchmark” projected revenue figure is agreed upon, usually in a hearing in Gardener Auditorium in the State House attended by the Secretary for Administration and Finance, and the Chairmen of both House Ways and Means, Senate Ways and Means, and public figures.Each state agency, public agencies, quasi public agency, executive agency, and other organization funded by the “general fund” submits a budget. In crafting House One, the Executive Office of Administration and Finance in the Governor’s office shaves the submitted budgets, so that the total budget published as “House One” in January by the Governor never exceeds the benchmark projected revenue figure. However, the funds allocated, whether for snow and ice removal, prisons, indigent defense, or anything else never equal what any of these agencies or functions require to actually function and do their jobs. Everyone involved on Beacon Hill knows that the figures in House One are illusory, and that almost every function will need more money because no one knows how much snow will fall, how many prisoners will be locked up, how many indigent residents will be appointed attorneys, or how many pot holes and sink holes will need repair, just for example.
In fact, the benchmark revenue figure is always conservative, and for Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11), the benchmark was low by over a billion dollars. An adult conversation about revenue and budgets should begin with the question, “What does it cost for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to function effectively and competently and fulfill the needs and requirements of governance.”
Instead, the requirement that the House One Budget, the House Budget, and the Senate Budget be balanced based on a projected revenue figures means that without supplemental budgets, nearly every governmental department or agency or quasi would grind to a halt.
For Jay Gonzalez, the current Secretary of Administration and Management claim that CPCS, or snow removal “exceed their budget” is thus bogus, as both are always underfunded to create the illusion of a balanced budget, and to play the balanced budget shell game.
Let’s stop playing games, and listen to Senator Chang Diaz and Representative James O’Day – and invest in our communities – see http://local.we-r-1.org/weareone/reports/325
behind balanced budgets, but it is far too much to expect that most elected officials could explain, never mind, justify it.
What makes the balanced budget argument a joke is that the cumulative effect of tax cuts and increase of costs mean that budget is always going to be smaller in real terms, choking off government spending.
… that ‘balancing the budget’ is a particularly elusive target and a not entirely necessary game in and of itself, I welcome the ‘PR shell game’: strict adherence to both the letter and the spirit of the law would leave us in the most doleful positions… . Though, to be ideal, we should scrap the ledgerdomaine altogether and deal with our budgets in a much more straightforward manner.
Amen to that. I’ve long inveighed against the past administrations and legislative adolescents (one of which is now on trial…) but let us not take that as an indictment on the present administration: Deval Patrick is the first adult in charge since Mike Dukakis. Amen to that, also. I’m also pleased with the near complete brooming out of the auditors office that is happening before our eyes. One might even be tempted to say, ‘It looks like we got a Bump in the pols.’
So here’s to the adults in charge. Long may they serve. Let us get others to join them…
Have you ever had to vote on a government budget? The starting point has to be revenue, and it necessarily must be a projection, i.e. an informed guess. This is true even for municipal budgets, which are less variable than the Commonwealth’s budget.
There is great virtue in not overestimating revenue, as the cuts needed to balance a budget mid-year are very difficult to make: witness the Governor’s 9C cuts in the teeth of the recent recession. The later in the year the cuts are made, the more draconian they must be.
Your post does not make a convincing argument that there is anything wrong with the budgeting process. It is simply an argument for higher taxes and more government services. Why don’t you just say that?