MBPC review of the Senate Budget

The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (must reading for any serious budget wonks) has done a preliminary analysis of the Senate Engrossed budget.  Their report notes that:

• the increase in sales tax from 5% to 6.25% (and elimination of the sales tax exemption for alcohol) should generate approximately $730 million in FY2010;
  
• the Senate used this revenue to restore about $550 million of the $3 billion that the Ways and Means Committee had recommended in budget cuts;
  
• the Senate allocated $275 million to avert a toll increase on the Massachusetts Turnpike, to address the budget crisis at the MBTA and to support other transportation programs.
  

Senate President promises Transporation Reform

Boston.com reports that the Seante President has promised to enact transportation reform before the budget hits the Governor's desk.  That would avoid toll hikes -- currently scheduled to kick in on July 1st -- and blunt the Governor's threatened veto of the Sales Tax if he didn't see some reform first. Given that Transportation is the "big money" reform -- i.e., the one that could end up saving the state the most amount of money -- let's hope that the Senate President can deliver on this promise.

Senate Printed Budget Just Released

The Senate Budget, printed as amended, now has the bill number SB 2060.  The text of the document has been published, and is shown below.  Needless to say, we'll be doing some analysis fo the budget, and should have various numbers to you all over the next few days.

Another Thing that Might have Escaped your Attention

Another thing that might have escaped your attention is the fact that the Senate gave new document numbers to three amendments.  They are:

1. Amendment #1 (Municipal Finance), reprinted as SB 2053
2. Amendment #46 (Sales Tax Increase), reprinted as SB 2054
3. Amendment $62 (Local Aid), reprinted as SB 2055.

How do I know this?  Somebody told me.  It's not because there is anything on the Senate website that would allow me or any other reader to know that.  And, it turns out that the text that is posted on the website for Amendment #46 and #62 is pretty much the same as in the printed amendment, but not so with Amendment #1, which has been completely rewritten in the amended form as SB 2053.

Among the little changes that they made is to change the Chapter 64L from a chapter relative to Taxation on Meals to one which is now concerned with "TAXATION OF DIRECT BROADCAST SATELLITE SERVICE."  That's a change worth noticing.

The Senate was Changing Results without Notice

If you weren't paying attention you may have missed the fact that the Senate was changing actions between Wednesday and Friday of last week without giving the rest of us any notice of that fact.  The table below represents six different actions with respect to amendments where it turns out that what the Senate posted on its website on Wednesday (May 20th) was not the same as what was posted on the website on Friday (May 22nd).

ID	Sponsor	Title of Amendment	5-20 Actions	5-22 Actions	Changed
10	Richard T. Moore	State Government Accountability, Economy, and Efficiency	Rejected	Adopted	TRUE
54	Sonia Chang-Díaz	Closing to Tobacco Loopholes	Rejected	Withdrawn	TRUE
56	Richard R. Tisei	Wage and Hiring Freeze	Pending	Rejected	TRUE
56.1	Stephen M. Brewer	Wage and Hiring Freeze Further Amendment	Adopted	Withdrawn	TRUE
237	Thomas M. McGee	E Team Machinist	Withdrawn	Rejected	TRUE
419	James E. Timilty	EOPS Administration	Withdrawn	Rejected	TRUE

 

Senate Floor Amendment Results

The final results are in -- with the caveat that the Senate website is still missing a handful of outcomes, and, they've been known to change results on their website after the fact -- and the're listed below.  As the day proceeds we should have more detailed analyses of whose amendments were adopted, how much they cost, and some statistics around the percentage of adopted, rejected, withdrawn and bundled amendments.  So stay tuned.  Here are the results as best we know them now:

Only in Massachusetts

I think only in Massachusetts would we have a bill entitled "Repeal the Pacheco Law" while Pacheco is still in the room.  And this debate was a predictable canard for them to take on.  On the other hand, I have to say that I'm surprised to here Fred Berry get up and argue against the Pacheco law.  And maybe he has a point.  In any case, the text of the amendment is set forth below:

Repeal of Pacheco Law

Mr. Tisei moved that the bill be amended by inserting after Section 7 the following new Section:
“SECTION 7A.  Sections 52, 53, 54 and 55 of Chapter 7 of the General Laws are hereby repealed.”
And moved to further amend the bill by inserting after Section 61 the following new Section:-
“SECTION 61A.  Section 5 of Chapter 268A of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2000 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out in lines 29 through 40, the following words:- “or (f) a former state employee whose salary was not less than that in step one of job group M-VII in the management salary schedule in section forty-six C of chapter thirty, and who becomes an officer or employee of a business organization which is or was a party to any privatization contract as defined in section fifty-three of chapter seven in which contract he participated as such state employee, if he becomes such officer or employee while the business organization is such a party or within one year after he terminates his state employment, unless before the termination of his state employment the governor determines, in a writing filed with the state ethics commission, that such participation did not significantly affect the terms or implementation of such contract.”

And moved to further amend the bill by inserting after Section 64 the following new Sections:-

“Section 64A.  Section 274 of chapter 110 of the acts of 1993, as amended by Section 3 of chapter 296 of the acts of 1993, is hereby further amended by striking out the last two paragraphs. 
Section 64B.  Section 4 and Section 5 of chapter 296 of the acts of 1993 are hereby repealed.”

Now it's on to Public Employees

Now that we've done taxes, local aid and gambling, it's on to public employees.  (When are we going to get around to religion and sex?)  The Republicans want to impose a wage freeze on public employees and a hiring freeze on the state in general.  The text of the bill is set forth below:

---

Mr. Tisei moved that the bill be amended by inserting, after Section __, the following new Section: -

“SECTION __.  Notwithstanding any special or general law to the contrary no department or agency of the commonwealth may increase the compensation of any employee in excess of an employee’s compensation rate as of June 30, 2009.  In addition, no department or agency may fill any vacancy, unless said vacancy is deemed critical to public safety, and a letter to such effect is transmitted to the secretary of administration and finance prior to the hiring of any new employee and said communication is returned with a signed approval by said secretary.  This section shall expire on July 1, 2011.”

---

A wage freeze is, by the way, probably the right call on the merits. The pro-labor division of the Democrats want the issue to be resolved through collective bargaining, which I think is also correct. Most of the public employee unions have already agreed to a wage freeze.  In any case, a wage freeze would be largely cosmetic, as it saves very little in relationship to the magnitude of the budget deficit.  It should go without saying that the right thing to do here is for all the unions to simply agree to a wage freeze for FY 2010 immediately and render this issue moot.

No Slot machines at the Tracks

This morning has been all about gambling, but the Senate has defeated an attempt to raise revenues through gambling by allowing slot machines at race tracks.  The Senate is also just about to defeat extending the deadline by which the greyhound racetracks must close, pursuant to the winning ballot iniative from last November.  See the Boston.com article on the same topic below:

What did the Governor Say (to Tweak them so?)

I don't quite know what the Governor said, but it's clear that he really upset the Senate with an email that he sent from Atlanta today.  It sounds like more of what the Governor had already been saying -- that he would veto the sales tax increase if the Senate didn't pass some of his recommended reforms first -- but whatever he said, it got the Senate collectively to have their knickers in a twist.  They unanimously passed an amendment, with the Republicans on board and Tisei even speechifying in support, proposed by Senator Tarr, that would require the Governor to develop a report detailing what actions he's taking with respect to FY 2009 and post it on the State website.  Here's the full text of the amendment:

Mr. Tarr moved that the bill be amended by inserting, after Section X, the following new Section:-

“SECTION XX. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the Governor shall, through the Secretary of Administration and Finance, develop a report detailing all action undertaken by the Executive Branch in Fiscal Year 2009, and those planned to be undertaken in 2010, to reduce the costs of employee compensation. Said report shall also include an itemization of any and all stuffing reductions, furlough and salary wage reductions in addition to any salary and wage increases and any increases in staffing levels from 2008 to 2009 to those projected for 2010.

Said report shall be filed with the clerks of the House and Senate and the House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means and posted electronically on the official website of the Commonwealth not later than three months following the passage of this act.”

Withdrawn Amendments added to redrafted #46

Not only did the Senate enact 93 line-item increases along with the redrafted sales tax amendment (#46), but they also took care of the substance of some of the amendments that had been withdrawn.  So for, example, there is an emdnemtn which increases the appropriation of the Massachusetts Legal Assistance corporation by $5 million and change.  

JUD 94

RELATIVE TO MLAC

Ms. Creem moved that the bill amended, in Section 2, in item 0321-1600 by striking the figure “6,000,000” and inserting in place thereof the figure “11,070,424”.

On the state website, that amendment is listed as having been withdrawn.  However, in amendment #46 it shows up in the following format:

And, in Section 2 in item 0321-1600 by striking the figure “$6,000,000” and inserting in place thereof the following:- “$8,000,000”

So yes, the amendment was withdrawn, but in substance it has been taken care of.  Not for the full $5 million, but for $2 million nontheless.

Click here to see a small table of all the amendments that were technically withdrawn that were actually taken care of in the redrafted sales tax amendment (#46).

Analysis of the 93 line-items in Section 46

We've completed our analysis of the 93 line-items added in the redrafted Section 46, and the end result is that the amendment adds $531,359,170 to the bottom line just from line-item increases alone.  

The larges increase is $82,916,451 added to the MassHealth Managed Care account. The MassHealth Fee-for-Service Payments account also gets a $59,503,373 shot in the arm.  DMA MassHealth Senior Care gets an additional $49,322,782 and the DOE Circuit Breaker for Special Education Residential Schools adds another $36,000,000.

Click here to see a table with all 93 line-items amended by the redrafted Section 46.