Romney Budget Proposal Has People Involved

It's often the case that the most talked-about item of business around the State House is the crafting of the commonwealth's budget. In the past several years almost all other legislation was held hostage by the fact that the budgets were so late. Ways and Means committees moved no bills out to the full legislature.

Once again this year, the budget is dominant in the minds of legislators and the administration. The reasons are different, however. Here's how one participant in recent budget talks described it. "Usually the House members take the Governor's bill and throw it in the trash after they look to see if it has an interesting cover. The they write the real budget. This year the bill doesn't even have a cover, they can just push the 'delete' button. But it's getting a lot more attention than usual. That's because it's like a bad car wreck. People can't take their eyes off it, it's so bad." Not everyone agrees it's that bad, but most agree that it's different.

The whole budget process is different this year. It's the Romney team's first budget. Legislative leaders and staff were willing to "cut them some slack," as one staffer told us this week. But that time is over. One of the reasons for the honeymoon period to be over is the lack of responsiveness of Romney spokesmen to legitimate questions. There is a lot of change in the Romney proposal, but according to many would-be participants in the process, the spokesmen simply do not have the answers to their questions. One lobbyist told the BHB this week that he had stopped asking questions of his contacts in the Governor's office. He doesn't blame the administration staffers, he said, "it's just that there are no answers, and there are none forthcoming."

Most people we speak to at the State House recognize that Romney has a tough job in presenting a budget that can work in the current economic realities. Most, Democrats and Republicans alike, agreed that he would have to take some tough stands and would need to trim the budget without adding too much, if any, of a new tax burden. At the very least, all parties recognize that a business as usual attitude will not serve the citizens of the state at this time.

Cabinet Secretaries have been testifying at budget hearings in various parts of the state, yet few who attend the hearings come away satisfied that they're gotten any answers. Many of those who attended the hearing on environmental issues last week were so discouraged that they simply left. Several had planned to testify or ask questions, but were so disturbed by the lack of answers, that they gave up in frustration.

This budget is a completely new animal. The Governor is using it to restructure the government. He is proposing mergers of numerous agencies. There appears to be a new two-tiered secretariat situation built in to the new structure. People want to know what makes this more efficient than the old system. The old line item system of presenting a budget will also be junked under this proposal. Approximately 2500 line items will be compacted down to 72 "Master Accounts." The purported reason for this is to allow greater management flexibility.

This flexibility, however, allows managers to move money much more freely than in the past. People are asking, "Is this more efficient? Will this allow for greater accountability with the taxpayers' money?" It may be that, as a matter of fact, this is a more efficient means of managing a budget. The ability to transfer funds from one account to another could possibly make it easier for cash-strapped agencies to get relief near the end of a fiscal year. Those with surpluses could transfer some funds to the needy departments.

For those of us who try to make some sense out of the state budget, with varying degrees of success, the new Master Account system appears to be a great place to hide potentially politically volatile funding. It's hard enough now to find the money allocated every year for such items as Gay/Straight Alliances. Will this greater flexibility for managers mean even less access for citizens? It certainly looks that way.

Legislators have taken steps to assure that the budget is finished before the new fiscal year begins on July 1. They have also begun to make it very clear that they intend to take their own path to that budget. It's as though they're saying, "OK, Gov. Romney, playtime's over. It's time for the experienced pros to take over." The concepts in the Romney budget may well be what's needed to put the state on an even financial keel. It may simply be that it is too ambitious and too ambiguous.

Perhaps, on the other hand, this is just what's needed at this time. It's entirely possible that the resistance of legislative offices comes from the fact that they are being pushed out of their budget-process comfort zone. It's possible that legislators are feeling comfortable with the "old" system; with the "old" line items; with the "old" structure. Perhaps they need to practice a little thinking outside the box. Perhaps they're feeling a little power slipping away.

Mitt Romney has been able to take budget discussions to places they have not been in a very long time. The process is fraught with possible pitfalls and potholes. He should be given credit for trying. Legislators should, perhaps, not be so quick to make a wholesale substitution of their own budget bill.

The joint Ways and Means Committees wind up their committee hearings this Friday at the State House. This is the last opportunity for the general public to make its views known. Ordinarily, this hearing also attracts representatives of all those interest groups who feel they need to speak up to protect their funding. It could be a long day. One has to wonder whether it will also be a productive day.

Info? Contact Curt Lovelace - 978-425-6278 - curt@lifeworkforum.org

To read Curt's Beacon Hill Beat, click here.