A Republican effort to cap state spending met fierce resistance Wednesday from Democrats who called the move “foolish” and a “political gesture” that could choke off lifelines for vulnerable residents or communities ravaged by natural disasters.
File photo / Associated PressA separate GOP amendment by House Minority Leader Bradley Jones to credit taxpayers when year-to-year revenue increases exceed 4.5 percent was defeated 34-116, again with Rep. Christopher Fallon as the only Democratic supporter.
By Kyle Cheney, STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE
BOSTON - A Republican effort to cap state spending met fierce resistance Wednesday from Democrats who called the move “foolish” and a “political gesture” that could choke off lifelines for vulnerable residents or communities ravaged by natural disasters.
The proposal, offered as an amendment to a bill intended to rewrite the state’s finance laws, failed 34-115 on a largely party line vote, with only Rep. Christopher Fallon (D-Malden) voting with Republicans.
Republicans said the plan would index state spending limits to growth in inflation and population, forcing fiscal restraint.
“This would level our peaks and valleys of revenue we see each year,” said Rep. George Peterson (R-Grafton).
Added Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Pembroke), “This hits at the heart of fiscal responsibility.”
But Democrats said the move would tie government’s hands, potentially in life-threatening ways.
Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville) said the amendment would limit spending increases to factors that don’t necessarily provide an accurate indication of spending needs. She noted that just a few hours earlier, House members learned that the state’s population of special education recipients had risen fourfold in recent years, in part because of medical advances that were saving the lives of low birth weight babies.
“How does that fit into a metric that looks into inflation and population?” she wondered. “This is a foolish way to make public policy.”
“It's our job to make judgments from year to year about what we spend and how we tax. And to put into statute any requirements [that] in any way limit our successors is to make a serious political mistake,” added Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington). “If this is a meaningless political gesture we are being asked to subscribe to, I would ask that we reject it.”
Republicans bristled at the description of their efforts as political gimmickry.
“If fighting for the taxpayers of Massachusetts is gamesmanship, count me in as political,” said Rep. James Lyons (R-Andover). His fellow freshman Republican colleague, Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica), contended that recent questions about health care spending on illegal immigrants and the operation of the Rose Kennedy Greenway underscored the need for spending limits.
A separate GOP amendment by House Minority Leader Bradley Jones to credit taxpayers when year-to-year revenue increases exceed 4.5 percent was defeated 34-116, again with Fallon as the only Democratic supporter.
Rep. Peter Kocot (D-Northampton) argued that the amendment would bind the Legislature to an artificial taxation limit.
“Things happen where we have to move quickly, be flexible and jump into action,” he said, invoking the natural disasters that wracked Monson, Brimfield and Springfield last year.
The back-and-forth over Republican amendments belied the eventual passage of the underlying bill – a wide-ranging bill to overhaul the state’s finance laws – on a unanimous, bipartisan vote.
The bill’s supporters said it espoused a simple goal: making government work better. The bill will enable policy makers to operate from a more "knowledge-based, agile and pro-active" position, according to Kocot, who co-chairs the Legislature’s State Administration Committee.
The bill is a rewrite of legislation that unanimously passed the Senate last year.
According to Kocot, the bill removes “contradicting” laws pertaining to state finance and bonding, aims to ensure lawmakers are informed about trends in big-ticket accounts like pensions and human services caseloads, accelerates the transition from paper systems to computer platforms, and looks to build on the state's performance audit capabilities.
The bill also retains the Legislature's oversight of surplus property transactions, requires budget bills filed by the governor to include information on trends, and creates a five-member state finance board to promote transparency.
Proposals included in the Senate bill but dropped in the House bill would institute a zero-based budget formation process, distribute local aid on a monthly rather than quarterly basis, and create a "sunset commission" to review the need for state agencies and board. The Senate bill, unlike the House plan, also authorized the use of the state's rainy day fund for borrowing if the borrowing was cheaper than short-term cash flow borrowing.
During debate, the House adopted a Republican amendment that would require the Legislature to adopt an annual tax revenue forecast within 10 days of one being agreed upon by legislative and executive branch budget writers.
The House also backed GOP proposals to post collective bargaining agreements online, to create a special commission to study a two-year budget cycle, to create a special commission to study the feasibility of creating a nonpartisan legislative budget office, and to link an annual limit on capital gains taxes in the budget to personal income growth.
The House also supported an amendment filed by Rep. John Scibak (D-South Hadley) that would require all Executive Branch jobs to be posted in a computerized referral system. An amendment by Rep. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) to establish a commission that would identify redundancies in government functions also won passage, along with an amendment by Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington) to promote “a comprehensive, rational, policy-driven and analytic approach to our tax expenditure budget.”
During debate on their amendments, Republicans repeatedly praised House Speaker Robert DeLeo for forswearing new taxes in the House’s initial budget proposal, due out next month.
Fallon, the Malden Democrat who voted with Republicans on taxing and spending restrictions, said many of his colleagues had employed “exaggeration and hyperbole” in their rejection of the amendments. Speaking on the proposal to index spending growth to inflation and population changes, Fallon said, “I think that this amendment is very innocuous. I think it's harmless.”
Fallon also took exception to an earlier comment by Rep. Benjamin Swan (D-Springfield), who ripped Republicans for claiming to be aware of the pulse of all Massachusetts voters.
“We're listening to some of the members as if all we do is raise taxes and spend. No single member has a monopoly on what the public of Massachusetts thinks,” Swan said, speaking against the tax proposals. “There are a number of people in my community who want increases in taxes … It's amazing that one member of this body can tell us what the taxpayers of Massachusetts want.”
To applause from the Republican caucus, Fallon replied, “To suggest that any member of this House does not have the right to get up to that podium and say that he believes that the people of Massachusetts want to hold us accountable, want to limit the spending … that person is speaking for his or her constituency.”
Speaking against taxation and spending limits, Rep. Angelo Scaccia (D-Hyde Park) predicted that the House’s budget would slash local aid to cities and towns and would make cuts to the state’s multi-billion-dollar Medicaid program.
“We're not going to be able to raise local aid. In fact, we're going to have to lower it. I can just imagine how some of the folks in this chamber are going to react to that,” he said. “For as long as I've been here, the Medicaid budget has been going up $1 billion per year. We're going to make some cuts, I think, in the Medicaid budget and in the general health care budget this year. I think there will be a group of individuals in this chamber who are going to say, 'Not my hospital. Not my doctors.' ”
“Over the past 15 years, we have had one general tax increase, and that was the sales tax that went from 5 to 6-and-a-quarter. During that same time, we have made close to … 50 tax cuts and at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have provided tax incentives for certain corporations.”
House members appeared unaccustomed to the vigor and intensity of the debate, in part because lengthy discourse has become increasingly rare in the House in recent years. Several veteran members of the House preceded their remarks with seeming surprise at the depth and detail of the discussion.
“It was exciting to have a debate break out and have people listening to it. It's kind of what we should be about in here,” said House Minority Leader Bradley Jones, a North Reading Republican.
“I, too, have enjoyed the topical debate we've had,” said Kaufman. “It's timely. I think it's important, and I think it's been well-conducted.”
Scaccia, the dean of the House, added that although he hoped the Republican amendments were defeated, “I enjoyed the debate today. I thought it was well-orchestrated. I thought it was well-done.”
“I might spend a little more time in this chamber,” he added, drawing laughs from colleagues.