Some Budging on the Budget–But Austerity Still Reigns

Last Tuesday, after only two days of debate, the House approved its budget for FY 2018 on a nearly unanimous vote of House 159-1. Republican Jim Lyons of Andover was the sole dissenting vote.

If some of the House’s most conservative Republicans are willing to vote for a budget, you know it’s not particularly ambitious. State House News Service described it as “the latest in a string of austerity budgets,” and they were right. Even though an additional $77 million was added during the amendment process (bringing the budget to $40.8 billion), the budget still entrenches a pattern of underinvestment in public transit, public education, and the vital social services that are the foundation of a thriving and equitable economy.

Budget season in the House tends to follow a particular script. Amendments from progressive representatives proposing new revenue or creative new ideas will be withdrawn, often without floor debate. Amendments from Republicans will be debated on the floor and then “sent to further study,” i.e., tabled indefinitely. And the leadership will decide behind closed doors which line item increases will get into the final budget, bundling them into large, omnibus amendments. Votes, including that on the final budget, will mostly be either party-line or (nearly) unanimous (with occasional splits in the Republican caucus or defections from the likes of Colleen Garry of Dracut or James Dwyer of Weymouth on the Democratic side).

This dynamic was largely on display last week.

Unfortunately, the two revenue amendments from Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville) we had supported were withdrawn–although we commend Rep. Provost along with Reps. Ruth Balser (D-Newton), Tricia Farley-Bouvier (D-Pittsfield), Cory Atkins (D-Concord), and Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge)for speaking on behalf of the income tax freeze amendment on the floor. It is rare to see progressive amendments actually see floor debate.

What happened to the others? On housing, Rep. Paul Donato (D-Medford)’s amendment to increase Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program (MRVP) by $20 million did not make it into the budget. Part of of Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge)’s MRVP amendment made it into the final budget (allowing the use of MRVP funds for a voucher management program), but the more important parts of the amendment (requiring the agency to issue new vouchers sooner in the fiscal year and increasing voucher rent caps to current fair market rent standards) were not.

Rep. Alice Peisch (D-Wellesley)’s amendment to increase the funding for the Early Rate Reserve to $20 million from $15 million made it into the final budget. Rep. Paul Brodeur (D-Melrose) had sought to bring the funding for YouthWorks to $13.5 million; it ended up at $10.75 million instead, counting earmarks.

Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Newton) had advocated for increasing the funding for the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, which ensures that low-income residents of Massachusetts have access to legal information, advice, and representation, to $21 million from $19.5 million. The final House budget included $20 million–better but not good enough. Rep. Mary Keefe (D-Worcester)’s amendment to increase funding for crucial programs to combat recidivism and create opportunities from $250,000 to $2 million did not make it into the final budget at all.

Rep. David Rogers (D-Cambridge)’s amendment had sought to increase the operations budget for DEP from $24.4 million to $30 million. Just $500,000 extra made it into the final budget, hardly sufficient.

Rep. Carole Fiola (D-Fiola)’s amendment had sought to increase the family planning services line item to $5.8 million. It ended up at $5,678,797.

Now on to the Senate, where the fight continues….

We’re #1…But Don’t Celebrate Too Fast

Last week, Massachusetts had the honor of placing #1 in the U.S. News & World Report state rankings. The 50-state analysis included more than 60 metrics, and on many of them, Massachusetts shines. We ranked #1 in education, #2 in health care, and #5 in economy. When it comes to education, Massachusetts is the birthplace of US public schools, and when it comes to health care, our 2006 health care reform law created a model for the nation.

But don’t crack open the champagne yet. Although, overall, we outperformed other states, Massachusetts fared abysmally on a number of key metrics.

Although Massachusetts had some of the highest test scores in the country, inequality remains a defining feature of our public school system. We ranked #31 on education equality by race. Quality Counts, which conducts an annual ranking of states on education, found a similar dynamic. Massachusetts ranked #1, but consistently fell near the bottom on any metrics focused on equity. We have great schools, but not everyone gets to go to them.

When our students graduate and go to college, they face high tuition (#41) and are saddled with debt for years after (#39). And the inequality in education is reflected in the resulting inequality in the economy: Massachusetts had one of the highest racial gaps in income (#40) and one of the highest Gini indexes (#45), a measure of the gap between the richest and poorest in the state.

And you can only take advantage of what Massachusetts has to offer if you can afford to live here, which isn’t easy. We were #45 in cost of living and #44 in housing affordability. Expensive housing prices force people to live further from work, leading to long commutes (#47), made worse by low-quality roads (#47).

Inequality and poverty breed crime, a dynamic exacerbated by an overreliance on outdated “tough-on-crime” policies. Massachusetts has some of the country’s most overcrowded prisons (#46) and biggest racial gaps in juvenile incarceration (#46).

So, clearly, something’s the matter with Massachusetts. What can we do about it?

Our 2017-2018 legislative agenda offers some vital steps forward.

Policies like a $15 minimum wage (S.1004/HD.2719) can help reduce inequality. Modernizing the Foundation Budget (S.223) will foster greater equity in education spending. Zoning reform and increased housing production (S.81) can reduce the cost of living in Massachusetts. Making public higher education tuition-free (H.633) or debt-free (S.681) will alleviate the debt burden faced by students at Massachusetts’s many great colleges and universities and make higher education more accessible. The Fair Share amendment, by imposing a progressive income tax and earmarking new revenue for education and infrastructure, can reduce inequality, improve education equity, and make for easier commutes.

Comprehensive sentencing reform that reinvests savings in job training and education (S.791/HD.2714)—or even just eliminating mandatory minimums for non-violent drug crimes (S.819/H.741)—will help reduce prison overpopulation and combat the multi-faceted injustices of the criminal justice system. And eliminating and reducing the fees involved in the criminal justice system (S.777/HD.2929) will make sure that we aren’t incarcerating people for the simple crime of being poor.

That’s a lot of work for the next two years. But if we are the #1 state, we should certainly be able to handle it.

Boston Globe: Should higher taxes be off the table when legislators discuss next year’s state budget? (Redux)

“Should higher taxes be off the table when legislators discuss next year’s state budget?” — Boston Globe [opinion] (1/29/2016)

NO

Ryan Adams

Swampscott resident, Democratic activist, Progressive Massachusetts member

It’s disappointing to hear Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo and other key legislative leaders say no to putting any increased revenue on the table for the upcoming budget. With a deficit that’s upwards of $1 billion, that means cutting into the bone of the middle class, working poor, and vulnerable communities.

Polls suggest a large majority of America supports increasing revenue to pay for important things, like our schools and infrastructure. Even a majority of millionaires have supported increasing their own taxes.

I’ve met the speaker several times and I think he’s a very good man who cares a lot about the state. But given how effective he can be, we must ask him to act boldly.

Massachusetts used to be the state of firsts. We were the first to embrace marriage equality. We were the first to tackle real health care reform. But what have we done lately?

Since DeLeo took the reins, Massachusetts has become a more expensive state to live in, with fewer good jobs for the middle class. Our traffic gets worse every year. While the speaker just came out against it — to his credit — MBTA riders are the only ones asked to pay more, disproportionately affecting the working poor.

To be sure, the Legislature and its leadership didn’t cause these problems, but they could solve them. It’s a tough task, requiring a great deal of political courage – and new revenue – but now is the time.

We have an incredibly intelligent, hardworking populace that leads the world in many categories, but our progress is bottlenecked on Beacon Hill. We need to tackle our transportation needs, the high cost of health care, and the opioid epidemic sweeping the state.

None of these problems can be solved in a day, but a “no new revenue” pledge can only ensure they grow worse.

There are those who don’t think we can afford to solve our problems. They’re wrong, and because of that cynicism, we end up paying far more in the end: for jails instead of schools, or higher car insurance instead of better roads.

Beacon Hill can change that, but it’s going to take leadership, courage and a little more revenue, to go a very long way.

Boston Globe: Should higher taxes be off the table when legislators discuss next year’s state budget?

“Should higher taxes be off the table when legislators discuss next year’s state budget?” — Boston Globe [opinion] (1/22/2016)

NO

Kevin Loechner

Hull resident, Democratic activist, member of Progressive Massachusetts

House Speaker Robert DeLeo recently declared that the House will propose no new taxes or fees for fiscal 2017. He stated that taxes are “off the table,” a position shared by Governor Charles Baker. This politically driven stance effectively cuts off debate on new sources of revenue to fund state government and strained municipal budgets across the Commonwealth, including this region.

Apparently, this no-new-fees position did not apply to mass transit commuters. MBTA fare increases are coming in July — up to 12 percent on commuter boats, as high as 10 percent on commuter rail. Crunching the data, I calculated that under the maximum fare increase, the last four years will have seen increases of 39 percent to 55.6 percent for train, boat, and bus commuters in the region, not including parking fee increases. And the latest fare increases will not improve service and barely cover the operating deficit.

State aid to local governments has still not recovered to pre-Great Recession levels. For example, Hull’s net state aid in fiscal 2002 was $7.38 million; in fiscal 2016 it was more than 26.6 percent lower, at $5.42 million. Without sufficient local aid, communities have had to seek fee increases or overrides — Weymouth tried and failed this year — or defer capital maintenance, which has been the case in Hull. Constant complaints about increased taxes for diminished services can be found on social media pages across the region.

Opponents of tax increases will talk about waste, fraud, and abuse, or that wealthier people will leave due to increased taxes. But there is not as much waste as conventional wisdom states, and the costs of stopping all fraud and abuse outweighs any savings we would gain. Data also shows that state taxes have little impact on interstate moves. And we have had reforms to state government in recent years, but the resulting financial benefits have fallen short of what is actually needed.

Even those who oppose increased taxes should agree that this is a discussion worth having for maintaining and building a strong Commonwealth. Please consider contacting your legislators and ask them to not take this option off the table in the name of political expediency.