In this uncertain economic world, House budgeteers have acknowledged they don’t know what they don’t know.
And so the modest trims they have made in the governor’s proposed state budget for the coming year will suffice — for now.
But make no mistake, before this budget process gets real — come June as lawmakers face a July 1 deadline — there will probably be tougher decisions to make as the state responds to a host of anticipated federal funding cuts, while still trying to maintain the services and programs that make Massachusetts a good and decent place to live. Planning for those contingencies needs to start now.
The House budget, released this week, weighed in at $61.4 billion — some $580 million less than Governor Maura Healey’s proposed budget but still 6.4 percent more than the one passed last year.
“We can’t be paralyzed by the situation that’s taking place in Washington,’’ House Ways and Means Chairman Aaron Michlewitz said at a budget briefing. “We need to still be moving our budget forward,’’ he said, in order to “build the best budget with the information we have.’’
Critical to that goal, however, is not larding up the budget this year, in particular with the usual array of earmarks and pet projects. This isn’t a year for funding dog parks or castle repairs when crucial services could be on the line just a couple of months from now.
Still, the House deserves credit for saving the taxpayers from several ill-advised taxes Healey proposed in her budget. That dreaded candy tax and a tax on prescription drugs were jettisoned in the House version, along with Healey’s proposal to put a cap on the charitable tax deduction, which could have hit local nonprofits just when federal funding is drying up. In all, the House dropped tax and fee proposals that would have accounted for $471 million in revenue — hence the need to make trims to the governor’s budget.
But it has not yet made any adjustments to the so-called consensus revenue figure — agreed to by the House, Senate, and the Healey administration back in January despite the parade of horribles emanating from Washington. That’s the number that could well change if federal support dries up.
“We absolutely are going to have to make adjustments to our revenue assumptions,’’ Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Doug Howgate told the editorial board. “But to cut $1 billion from the budget now wouldn’t make much sense until we know what [the economy] looks like.’’
Howgate figures it will likely be June before that happens — when House and Senate budget conferees usually meet to resolve differences in their budgets.
The biggest ticket item with the potential to throw state spending into turmoil is the Medicaid budget, which at $22.4 billion represents about a quarter of the entire budget. The budget assumes — for now — the federal government will come up with its expected $14 billion share. However, congressional Republicans are eyeing serious cuts to the program.
Now a budget — House or Senate — has rarely, if ever, been drafted that doesn’t contain some mischief in its policy prescriptions, and this one is no exception. With the Healey administration’s Education Department on the cusp of approving a lottery system for admissions to its 29 vocational schools, the House proposes to prohibit the department from implementing any such system through the admissions cycle for the 2026-27 academic year until a “task force’’ can review all admissions policies and standards by September 2026 — as if the idea hasn’t been studied and debated for more than a half dozen years already. The move represents shameful backsliding on implementing a fairer admissions policy.
But there’s good mischief afoot too in the budget. And that’s the lifeline the House budget throws to the Pappas Rehabilitation Hospital for Children in Canton and three small youth mental health treatment facilities, all slated for closure under Healey’s budget.
This is surely not going to be the easiest of budgetary years for Massachusetts to navigate. Economic uncertainties — many of them substantial — loom. Recession or no recession? Medicaid cuts? Education cuts? Tariffs that will impact the revenue side and the spending side for state government?
With more than $8 billion in its rainy day fund, Massachusetts has a substantial cushion it can fall back on. But not before smart, restrained budgeting does the real heavy lifting.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.
