Representative Don Humason



SPENDING OTHER PEOPLES’ MONEY By State Representative Don Humason, Jr. May 3, 2008 This week, the House of Representatives debated the Massachusetts Fiscal Year 2009 budget. FY ’09 starts July 1, 2008 and goes through June 30, 2009. When the House Ways and Means Committee released their version of the budget a week and a half ago, it had a bottom line of $27.9 billion. $27.9 BILLION! That’s before members filed over 1500 amendments that sought to add over $1.5 billion to it. I know, that’s a lot of money. To put it in some perspective, when I started representing Westfield in 2003 the state budget was around $20 billion. When I first starting working for Mike Knapik back in 1991 (when he was the Representative and I was a Legislative Aide) the state budget was $13 billion. As I was walking down the corridor at the State House toward the House Chamber for a roll call vote, I overheard one of my colleagues giddily exclaiming, “I love spending other peoples’ money!” That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re spending money that doesn’t belong to us on programs that rarely service the people we get the money from. I believe that if we’re going to spend other peoples’ money, we legislators have a duty and responsibility to spend it wisely. The ability to levy taxes is a powerful and terrible tool of government. The Founding Fathers were extremely worried that it would be a power abused by the governors at the expense of the governed. The state budget is the vehicle for redistribution of wealth from those who have money to those who don’t have it. As I’ve repeatedly said, if the state is supposed to be teetering on the edge of a recessional abyss everyone is predicting, how then can we justify increasing our already immense budget’s bottom line? How can we raise taxes on an already taxed population? How can we go after employers and corporations when unemployment rates are trending higher and jobs are leaving the state? Just as we do in our own budgets at home around the kitchen table, I believe we in government need to cover our expenses by living within our $27.9 billion budget. We need to prioritize what services we provide to cover the elderly, veterans, children, sick, and disabled without jeopardizing the working men and women of the Commonwealth and the institutions that employ our citizens and fuel our economy. Too many times I read in my budget book that a colleague’s amendment “increases the appropriation in the line item and earmarks the money.” Those earmarks don’t often go to Western Massachusetts. During the lengthy debate, members of my small Republican caucus repeatedly rose to ask the Majority Party the question “where is the money coming from to pay for all these amendment add-ons to the budget?” By week’s end legislators had voted to add over $125 million to the bottom line. Not me. In spite of some excellent causes espoused by amendment sponsors and supporters, I rarely voted in favor of the huge consolidated amendments. That’s another issue. Under this Speaker, we rarely debate and vote on single issue amendments anymore. The Ways and Means Committee consolidates amendments into vast categories: Public safety, higher education, state finance, Medicaid, etc. That forces legislators to have to vote on a “mixed bag” of items; to either accept the bad with the good, to simply hold your nose and vote yes, vote yes and hope for the best, or vote no out of frustration. It’s hard to be fiscally responsible. I hate having to vote “no” so many times. It’s so much easier to be in the Majority Party. My colleagues who follow the Speaker and vote “yes” on all the new spending claim it’s because these are all worthy items. I agree that many items are worthy and important. But many of them are not. How then can I be expected to vote yes? With the threat of a slowing economy and a precipitous drop in capital gains tax receipts predicted for next year, my response is to be cautious, conservative. I’d rather add programs in the middle of a fiscal year if we find we have the need and the resources than have to cut new programs because enough money wasn’t coming into the coffers. That’s an exercise we’ve had to do in recent history. They’re called 9C emergency cuts, and they’re very painful to everybody involved . If you’re still reading this column, thank you. I know budget talk is dreadfully dull and rather complex. If you have any questions please give me a call. I’d be happy to explain why I voted how I did. I will continue to be reserved when spending other peoples’ money. Thank you. * * * Representative Don Humason and his legislative aide Sarah Latour may be reached at their Westfield District office, 64 Noble Street, Westfield, MA 01085, 568-1366. Their Boston address is State House Room 542, Boston, MA 02133, (617) 722-2803. Email address: Rep.DonaldHumason@Hou.state.ma.us Website: www.DonHumason.org
This Site Designed and Maintained by: The Barre Group

SPENDING OTHER PEOPLES’ MONEY

By State Representative Don Humason, Jr.

May 3, 2008

This week, the House of Representatives debated the Massachusetts Fiscal Year 2009 budget. FY ’09 starts July 1, 2008 and goes through June 30, 2009.

When the House Ways and Means Committee released their version of the budget a week and a half ago, it had a bottom line of $27.9 billion. $27.9 BILLION! That’s before members filed over 1500 amendments that sought to add over $1.5 billion to it.

I know, that’s a lot of money. To put it in some perspective, when I started representing Westfield in 2003 the state budget was around $20 billion. When I first starting working for Mike Knapik back in 1991 (when he was the Representative and I was a Legislative Aide) the state budget was $13 billion.

As I was walking down the corridor at the State House toward the House Chamber for a roll call vote, I overheard one of my colleagues giddily exclaiming, “I love spending other peoples’ money!”

That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re spending money that doesn’t belong to us on programs that rarely service the people we get the money from. I believe that if we’re going to spend other peoples’ money, we legislators have a duty and responsibility to spend it wisely.

The ability to levy taxes is a powerful and terrible tool of government. The Founding Fathers were extremely worried that it would be a power abused by the governors at the expense of the governed. The state budget is the vehicle for redistribution of wealth from those who have money to those who don’t have it.

As I’ve repeatedly said, if the state is supposed to be teetering on the edge of a recessional abyss everyone is predicting, how then can we justify increasing our already immense budget’s bottom line? How can we raise taxes on an already taxed population? How can we go after employers and corporations when unemployment rates are trending higher and jobs are leaving the state?

Just as we do in our own budgets at home around the kitchen table, I believe we in government need to cover our expenses by living within our $27.9 billion budget. We need to prioritize what services we provide to cover the elderly, veterans, children, sick, and disabled without jeopardizing the working men and women of the Commonwealth and the institutions that employ our citizens and fuel our economy.

Too many times I read in my budget book that a colleague’s amendment “increases the appropriation in the line item and earmarks the money.” Those earmarks don’t often go to Western Massachusetts.

During the lengthy debate, members of my small Republican caucus repeatedly rose to ask the Majority Party the question “where is the money coming from to pay for all these amendment add-ons to the budget?” By week’s end legislators had voted to add over $125 million to the bottom line.

Not me. In spite of some excellent causes espoused by amendment sponsors and supporters, I rarely voted in favor of the huge consolidated amendments. That’s another issue. Under this Speaker, we rarely debate and vote on single issue amendments anymore. The Ways and Means Committee consolidates amendments into vast categories: Public safety, higher education, state finance, Medicaid, etc.

That forces legislators to have to vote on a “mixed bag” of items; to either accept the bad with the good, to simply hold your nose and vote yes, vote yes and hope for the best, or vote no out of frustration.

It’s hard to be fiscally responsible. I hate having to vote “no” so many times. It’s so much easier to be in the Majority Party. My colleagues who follow the Speaker and vote “yes” on all the new spending claim it’s because these are all worthy items. I agree that many items are worthy and important. But many of them are not. How then can I be expected to vote yes?

With the threat of a slowing economy and a precipitous drop in capital gains tax receipts predicted for next year, my response is to be cautious, conservative. I’d rather add programs in the middle of a fiscal year if we find we have the need and the resources than have to cut new programs because enough money wasn’t coming into the coffers. That’s an exercise we’ve had to do in recent history. They’re called 9C emergency cuts, and they’re very painful to everybody involved
.
If you’re still reading this column, thank you. I know budget talk is dreadfully dull and rather complex. If you have any questions please give me a call. I’d be happy to explain why I voted how I did.

I will continue to be reserved when spending other peoples’ money. Thank you.

* * *

Representative Don Humason and his legislative aide Sarah Latour may be reached at their Westfield District office, 64 Noble Street, Westfield, MA 01085, 568-1366.

Their Boston address is State House Room 542, Boston, MA 02133, (617) 722-2803.
Email address: Rep.DonaldHumason@Hou.state.ma.us

Website: www.DonHumason.org

This Site Designed and Maintained by: The Barre Group