THE OUTSIDE GAME
Boston Globe, MA
June 5 2006
PROSPERITY IS producing sloppiness in the budget process of the
Massachusetts Legislature. Both House and Senate versions of the
budget contain far too many outside sections, extraneous add-ons to
the financing plan of state government. The House-Senate conference
committee should severely limit them and produce a transparent,
fiscally realistic budget.
The Senate is the worse offender, with 439 in its budget passed last
week. Who could object to the Registry of Motor Vehicles offering Dr.
Seuss license plates to help pay for a museum to honor the author in
his native Springfield? But other outside sections would change policy
significantly, such as one that would shore up Matthew Amorello’s
authority as chief executive of the Turnpike Authority.
The Legislature was supposed to have settled that issue when it
strengthened Governor Mitt Romney’s powers over the turnpike board
in 2004. If lawmakers want to revisit it now, they should do so in
separate legislation.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi was proud last year that, at House
insistence, only 34 outside sections were included in the final
budget. But in April the House stuffed the economic stimulus and
supplemental appropriations bills, left over from last year, into
this year’s budget, making a total of 237 outside sections. The Senate
followed suit.
The stimulus bill and the supplemental are stalled because of
disagreement between the two branches. Including them in the
budget is supposed to force the conference committee to resolve the
differences. As it is, the Senate and House have enough disagreements
on core budget issues, such as local aid and healthcare, to keep the
committee busy for the next few weeks, and the budget is supposed to
be passed and signed by the governor before the start of the fiscal
year July 1.
The outside sections constitute a political wish list. The Senate
would revamp the school aid formula, provide incentives for the use
of hybrid vehicles, regulate the state treasurer’s ability to deposit
money in a single bank, discourage construction of an Armenian genocide
memorial on the Rose Kennedy Greenway, and offer a liquor license to
Isabella’s restaurant in Dedham. Some might constitute sound policy,
but all would benefit from separate consideration.
Some involve the expenditure of millions of dollars. Maybe it’s
important that Quincy get $12.1 million to convert its hospital to
a private, nonprofit facility or that payments to nursing homes be
enhanced, as the Senate proposes. But why tack these onto the tail end
of the budget? It’s a device to encourage legislators to throw money
at their favorite projects. To improve policymaking and discourage
overspending, outside sections are a temptation best avoided on
Beacon Hill.