On Friday, the Baker Administration announced $50 million in cuts to the state budget.
Administration and Finance Secretary Kristen Lepore’s letter to the Legislature announcing the cuts is here.
The link to specific budget cuts by line-item is here.
Please share widely!
Which is really a layoff by another name, because people leave and don’t get replaced.
…but it’s preferable to actual layoffs since it doesn’t affect any state employees.
Maybe it’s preferable to you.
The impact is on the millions of state residents who will absorb the reduced services caused by these cuts.
I’m just saying that if I must cut positions I’d rather do it by attrition than actively laying people off.
The link to the specific line-item cuts is broken. Perhaps you can update the thread-starter?
I’m curious to see how the “new taxes aren’t required” crowd describes these cuts.
One thing you might help me with: The cited letter describes a $320M revenue shortfall. The Baker administration, according to your thread-starter, announced FIFTY million dollars in cuts.
Where does the other TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY million dollars come from?
…to an A&F Pdf file here.
The total deficit is based on projections, not current accounts, and may not include $55 million in non-tax revenue – mostly federal reimbursements – nor does it factor in possible increased tax revenues.
The deficit projections have been expected since the beginning of the fiscal year in July, so it doesn’t affect the political dynamic re: taxes on Beacon Hill one way or the other. By default, the “no new taxes” folk (among House leadership and Senate rank and file) remain in the catbird seat, as of now.
Perhaps you might summarize what this pdf says, because I’m probably misreading it.
Here are the largest changes I see, ranked by the size of the reduction:
1599-0063 – Early Retirement Incentive Program NonPayroll Costs (1CS): -10.8M
4000-0700 – MassHealth Fee For Service Payments (1CS): -10.0M
1595-6368 – Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund (1CN): -6,5M
1599-0055 – Early Retirement Incentive Program Salary Reserve (1CS): -5.5M
8100-1001 – Department of State Police (1CS): -3.645M
1599-0026 – Municipal Regionalization and Efficiencies Incentive Reserve (1CS): (-3M)
This six items, taken together, total $39.445M — about 73% of the proposed reduction.
I’d like to ask the following questions about these six cuts:
1. What is the immediate impact of the cut? What programs, services, and operations will be reduced, restricted, or eliminated?
2. Who will be harmed most by this cut in the short term?
3. What is the long-term impact of the cut? What additional costs, if any do we incur?
4. Who will be harmed most by this cut in the long term?
5. Who benefits from this cut?
It appears that single biggest loser is the “Early Retirement Incentive Program”, at a total of $16.3M. The second biggest loser is “MassHealth Fee For Service Payments”. Third is the Massachusetts Transportation Trust fund (that seems self-explanatory, but perhaps not).
I get that the deficit projections have been expected for months, I still want to know the answer.
If we’ve known for months that we face an annual shortfall of $205M, how do the cuts announced today, totaling $54M address this problem? Where does the rest of the shortfall come from? What do we know today (after the cuts) that we didn’t know when this budget was put in place?
…and subject to correction.
Furthermore, I’ll have to do some research on the line-item-by-line-item cost/benefits before I attempt to answer your enumerated questions.
To the questions in your last paragraph:
The cuts, IMO, are a signal to the bond rating agencies, as opposed to structural solutions. It must be noted that the Commonwealth (which was ninth from the bottom of the fifty states) could only run for a couple of weeks at the end of FY15 on its existing reserve funds, and those funds are lower now.
The Commonwealth has a very good credit ratings, which presumably it wants to keep in the face of this year’s income tax reduction to 5.1% and increase in the earned income tax credit.
The rest of the shortfall is presumed, based upon revenue forecasts.
There is nothing (as far as I know) structurally different now then when the FY16 budget was passed and signed.
“now and when the FY 15 budget was passed and signed.”
I appreciate your answers to the questions I asked in my final paragraphs. It seems to me that those answers can only mean that Mr. DeLeo and Mr. Baker are lying when they say no new taxes are needed.
The fact is that, as you’ve observed, new taxes are DESPERATELY needed by pretty much any reasonable measure.
For example, in the first link you provide, we see (after adjusting the graph to show “Massachusetts”) that end FY15 able to run about FIFTEEN DAYS. This comes to the pre-crash number of about 45 days (at the end of FY2007) and about half of the 50-state median. In fact, while the 50-state median has been increasing since the end of the Great Recession, Massachusetts has been declining since the end of FY2012. We have REDUCED the state income tax rate and INCREASED the EIC.
The fact is that we are in TERRIBLE shape! And, as you observe, we have known it for months. We are spending down reserves already ravaged by the Great Recession. We are squandering the investments in infrastructure bequeathed to us by more responsible governments who came before us. We are telling ourselves self-serving lies while the evidence of our profligate irresponsibility mounts around us.
We desperately need to raise taxes on the wealthy. Deval Patrick attempted to do this, and was shamefully embarrassed by Mr. DeLeo and the rest of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
Mr. Baker and Mr. DeLeo are lying. We will see MORE, not fewer, symptoms of our foolish selfishness. As the consequences of these self-destructive and dishonest policies mount, we will see more utterances blaming Charlie Baker and “The GOP”.
Don’t believe them! WE Democrats own the legislature. WE DEMOCRATS control the purse-strings. WE DEMOCRATS can and should raise taxes on the wealthy.
Sorry team, but this is OUR fumble.
…particularly in a State election year.
Let me refer you to the results of the 2014 gas tax referendum, where the “yes” vote to repeal indexing the gas tax to inflation won despite being outspent 34 -1. I mention in passing that the repeal of an existing user fee was supported by the vote in 246 of the Commonwealth’s 351 municipalities, despite the resulting and self-evidently foreseeable damage to the State’s infrastructure.
While work around the upcoming “millionaire tax” constitutional amendment might change this dynamic, the fact remains that, at present, increased taxes are seen by many legislative incumbents, including – privately – many progressives, as politically toxic within their Districts.
Like it or not, most of the electeds (in both Houses) have reason to believe that, given a choice between reduced services and higher taxes, most of their constituents will opt for the former. In the case of the Governor, it would be unrealistic for him to renege on a core political promise, which arguably got him elected.
While one can oppose the Governor and Speaker on this matter, neither of them are lying. The issue goes to a greater problem: Many voters see little to no collateral benefit to increased government spending. Rather than cursing the symptoms, progressives would be well advised to address the disease.
It sounds as though we differ in the meaning of “needed”. In my world, if the consequence of not raising taxes is serious or catastrophic impact, then raising taxes is “needed”. Call it “realpolitik” if you like — if the consequences of not raising taxes are catastrophic then a politician who says otherwise is still, in my book, lying.
There is nothing new or “realpolitik” about telling lies to get elected, politicians have been doing that for as long as there have been politicians.
In my view, what is new attempting to say that this practice is anything but dishonest.
We get the government we pay for. It sounds as if you’re attempting to rationalize behavior that is irrational.
The honest approach is to say to the voters “if we do not raise taxes, we must dismantle public transportation”. If Mr. Baker and Mr. DeLeo think they can run and win elections on a theme of “it’s time to kill the MBTA”, then they should do so.
They should say something similar with public education and with the other areas they lie about.
Mr. DeLeo and Mr. Baker do NOT tell their constituents that they must choose between reduced services and higher taxes. What they say, instead, is that they can have THE SAME services and pay LOWER taxes.
THAT is the lie, and it IS a lie.
is that if every single tax increase that you want were passed, effective immediately, then the result would be a big raises for certain kind of state employee across the board, and a bunch of new hires of applicants “recommended” by the legislature at the Probation Dept., or whatever agency is the new patronage center, and that zero of the extra revenue would be dedicated to addressing MBTA capital infrastructure, road infrastructure, pension funding, or any other of the catastrophic consequences that have you concerned. Zero. Then, next year, someone will say, WE DESPARATELY need new revenue because there are catastrophes looming.
Why would anyone support granting this legislature any more revenue under any circumstances? They have already demonstrated that they will steal it.
nt
requires that the new taxes collected as a result be spent only on public education and transportation — not on a new crop of probation officers.
That these constraints would be constitutional and could not be circumvented by a mere wave of the Legislature’s hand might offer some assurance to those who are cynical about the legislative process. But I’d bet that opponents of the new tax will encourage voters to believe that there’s no constraint — even a constitutional one — that the Legislature cannot circumvent.
Text of constitutional amendment in case it’s handy:
The public is rightfully skeptical about what qualifies as reasonable and within the context of the law.
Marty Meehan started the crazy hiring of expensive provosts at UML, and continues his spending on palatial downtown offices. Maybe a drop in the bucket for the UMass budget but still increases the perception that the money won’t make it to where it’s most needed.
It isn’t that I disagree with this, it is that it is a lie to pretend that we aren’t going to see the devastating impacts that result.
I agree that the pervasive culture of corruption of our overwhelmingly Democratic government makes this difficult or impossible. This has been a persistent theme in my commentary here — it was the topic of my very first comments here.
Be that as it may, what our government is doing right now is saying that nothing bad will happen. This is a lie. What neither Mr. DeLeo nor Mr. Baker will admit is that, for example, our transportation infrastructure is literally crumbling.
Decisions have consequences. The consequences of the decision to not raise taxes are that the MBTA will collapse altogether. It collapsed last winter, and will likely do so this winter if seasonable weather ever arrives.
It’s all well and good to relentlessly repeat the tired mantra of “reform before revenue” — I’ve heard that pretty much non-stop for since I arrived here more than forty years ago. Since there IS no “reform” — EVER — the result is that matters get worse and worse, as we collectively squander our inheritance from the generations of investment, responsibility, and sacrifice that made by those who came before us.
We are the invading Vandal horde, destroying the civilization we have overrun.
Finally, let’s be clear about what tax increases I want.
– Significant increase in the state capital gains tax rate — from the current 5.25% to something like 15% — for capital gains in excess of some threshold like $1-5M
– Significant increase in the state gift/estate tax rate for non-household estates in excess of some threshold like $5M. It appears to me that under current Massachusetts law, the Massachusetts gift/estate tax is never more than the maximum allowable credit for federal gift/estate taxes. I think that constraint should be removed.
– Significant increase in the state income tax rate, with a corresponding increase in personal exemptions, so that only incomes in excess of $150K/300K/year have a significant effect.
These tax increases would generate significant new tax revenue, and would not increase taxes on any except the wealthy.
I actually don’t disagree with those tax proposals, and would likely support them, depending on the nitty gritty.
It just seems to me, that, all other things as they are, that if this all happened, there would be a few bridges and roads in Winthrop and maybe a few other key locales that are repaired REALLY well, and/or repaved/rebuilt regardless of their condition, and that the rest of the crumbling transportation infrastructure will crumble on, and the T still won’t be able to afford equipment that won’t fail if it is cold, or hot, or snowing, or raining.
I completely agree with you that reform before revenue is lousy policy. We could push a button eliminating all patronage, waste, and inefficiencies in government and would still have a massive budget shortfall incapable of addressing the pressing needs of this state. The problem is, until we actually make an effort to dent the patronage, waste, and inefficiencies they is just no political groundswell for higher taxes.
It’s why the Raise Up folks should be talking about tax fairness and equity as a selling point for the progressive tax rather than focusing on what the new money will pay for. Right now millionaires are free riding off the state’s regressive tax code which disproportionately stiffs the working man, by making it more progressive we are effectively cutting middle class taxes while raising them on the wealthy. That is how I would sell the tax change. You can see with the gas indexing vote that this state is adamantly opposed to new taxes and doesn’t trust the legislature to spend them on the real priorities they are needed to fund.
I do not dispute the difficulty of passing tax increases while doing so little about our current culture of corruption, I frequently make the same argument myself.
Regardless of WHY tax increases are refused, it is a lie to assert that terrible consequences will not result. Mr. Baker and Mr. DeLeo currently say just that. That’s why I accuse them of lying.
Yes, we need to eliminate corruption — starting with Mr. DeLeo himself (I keep hoping for a change in his “unindicted” status). Yes, we need to reform all the patronage, waste and inefficiency.
If we do NOT raise taxes (I’ve enumerated my proposal), then BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN, with or without “reform”. The refusal to admit that is a lie.
Don’t blame me, I voted for the Democrat.
“with one of the largest reductions being a $10 million cut at MassHealth earmarked for infrastructure and capacity building grants to small and mid-size hospitals for cost containment and quality improvement.”
Seems like that will cost the state far more down the road as health care costs continue to rise. Talk about penny wise and pound foolish.
If only there were a party with supermajorities in both houses that could counter this agenda of underinvestment.
Nah, we have “no new taxes” DeLeo.
is that municipal aid is off the table when it comes to cuts. This is great for cities and towns because those cuts really hurt. In many towns, our margin is so small we can’t make those cuts with any pretense of comfort. People see the damage clearly at the municipal level.
I can’t figure out if Baker doesn’t cut them for political reasons, the fact that he was once a selectman, or both.
n/t
I gather from this thread and others that:
1. DeLeo has pledged not to raise taxes.
2. Local aid is not being cut.
Ergo, every individual rep and senator is off the hook for the budget. Their districts get just as much cash, and they don”t have to raise taxes.
But you guys want to raise taxes so the state can “invest.” Which legislators will propose that, exactly? What are we “investing” in?
The T is broken, we’ve covered that lately. In the last few years overrides have lost in places like Newton — well to do communities that by any definition are liberal.
Meanwhile, can you think of one thing in your life that has gotten more expensive? Tuition, maybe your real estate taxes? Tickets to events, definitely. But an awful lot of things have dropped in price. City Video in Porter Square was an outlier, charging only $2.50 for a movie rental up until 1997 or so, when Blockbuster was $5. Now I can watch a movie for almost nothing.
The other day I was in Copley Square Mall, and I glanced toward what used to be the movie theater there. It’s now a store. And I thought of the Cheri — gone. Exeter Street — gone. (OK dating myself there.) That theater was replaced by Waterstone’s — gone. Barnes & Noble had a store at Downtown Crossing (gone), as did Borders (out of business).
The Boston Globe is so light you could make a paper airplane out of it.
My point, in all of this, is that a lot of things are changing. But there is downward pressure on prices. And the economy, though improving, still basically stinks.
And everybody hates the government.
I WANT to agree, that we should raise taxes and invest in infrastructure. But I also think the state has a lot to prove to the average taxpayer. Prices don’t drop because the sellers are being nice — prices drop because people have less money and buy less.
And by the way I know the “countercyclical” argument, and I mostly agree with it. But I think it’s a federal argument.
And I loved City Video, it’s how I discovered the Prisoner.
I think part of what we need to do more of is educate the public on what the government is actually doing and why it’s relevant to their lives. And we have to hold our own side accountable. Zero tolerance for patronage, for lax government employees or abuse of overtime systems and perks and benefits, and a reform to how we do contracting work with an eye towards greater accountability.
But we have to be clear, all the reforms in the world won’t make the basic costs of government any cheaper. We will need more tax revenue and it’s time to stop fleecing the middle class and giving the wealthy a break with our regressive income tax. It’s not only a great way to raise revenue it’s a far fairer way to do so. And that fairness question is something that get’s lost in the debate every time it comes up. Our opponents reduce it to a tax increase for more government. Which it is, but it’s an increase on the folks who have been getting a free ride for too long and a net decrease on the middle class.
don’t complain about cuts is they can’t connect the dots. This is less a problem with our low-information voters than it is with our uninformative media.
I was at the ratification of my teacher contract last year. Some teachers were complaining about the small COLA increases. They blamed the town. I didn’t bother to correct them, but the state is much more to blame. State aid has plummeted in the last 15 years or so. Education aid more or less flatlined, but other forms of state aid plummeted. My colleagues blamed the Town, which pays quite well for our area, and has spent well on education. My point is, these educated people could not see the big picture. That’s why tax and spending cuts are easy politically. The results are hard to see.
a Democratic governor may have been a better choice after all.
n/t