Opinion

The Massachusetts State Budget: What Do the People Want?

By Lou Langone
May 15, 2003

There were two major themes in the last election that set the tone this year's budget debate on Beacon Hill. The first was Question 1, The Repeal of the Income Tax, and the second was the election of Mitt Romney as Governor.

Spearheaded by Carla Howell and the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, the campaign to repeal the income tax garnered 45.3% of the vote. People that voted for Question 1 were in essence voting to give themselves the raise that they knew they would never get from Beacon Hill. The message went out loud and clear: Enough is enough! These voters may not have fully embraced the Libertarian Party's demands to dramatically downsize state government and to get the state government out of education. But many obviously felt that eliminating the income tax was the best way to force the power structure to downsize - tough love for politicians, so to speak.

The election of Mitt Romney - a Republican "outsider" - was also a significant event. Despite questions about his conservative credentials and his potential use of the corner office as a stepping stone to national office, he is by and large viewed by the voters as a capable CEO-type who just may be able to put a dent in the status quo. Some even felt that he could install some professional management practices in the bureaucracy.

The Governor has come forward with an array of reorganization and budget proposals taking aim at many of the state's sacred cows. Only the police were left off his hit list in the first wave - the Quinn Bill and paid details were spared the Governor's scrutiny. (Perhaps that is the one constituency he wanted in his corner if the going got really rough.)

Now the economy is in a funk. Consumers of government services are clamoring for more. Cost of living increases are buried in many government subsidized benefits, human services programs and public pensions. Layoffs are up, jobs are scarce, raises and bonuses are down. Meanwhile unemployment is stubbornly creeping higher.

Even more sinister is the unchecked growth of the Medicaid program. It is fast becoming the tape worm of the state's financial resources. Every year it becomes a larger burden on the state budget, demanding more tax dollars while delivering fewer benefits to consumers and little return to the taxpayers.

The legislature has received all of the Governor's proposals with a mixture of trepidation and incredulity. They claim they want to fix the state's budget problems but are skeptical of anything Romney suggests. They held a series of public hearings on various aspects of the Governor's proposals which were largely forums for special interests, state employee unions and the legislators themselves to trash Romney's plans and to make the case for continuing high rates of spending. A quote yesterday from Sen. Diane Wilkerson (D-Boston) is indicative of the stand taken by the partisan Legislature against Mitt Romney's proposals. She said, "We are determined in the Senate. We can do this without him."

The House's first draft budget was eerily reminiscent of last year's first draft - no meaningful spending reductions for the courts, education system or state employee benefits. Rather there were massive threats to the local aid to cities and towns and to funding for health services. It appears that they are looking to preserve the state bureaucracy and push the pain down to the local levels. Are they telling us that they can't do it so we (the people) should? If we need to do it at the local level, then what do we need them for?

It is still relatively early in the budget process but it doesn't look like the legislature is committed to fixing the problems with the budget. Massachusetts has a structural deficit in its budget, it has a burgeoning Medicaid funding problem and it is commonly believed by the vast majority of voters that there needs to be a significant house cleaning of dead wood and no shows.

We, as taxpayers, need to ask ourselves just how committed we are to "reforming" state government. Do we just go through the motions and fake it? Do we restructure and pare down in order to fix it? Or should we take the cue from the Libertarian Party (and others) and force the beast into submission? It is up to the people to decide. It is up to the people to act!