Lack of budget constitutes epic failure when put into perspective

It amazes us that the Commonwealth still does not have a FY2012 budget in place even though the new fiscal year starts tomorrow, July 1.

Just how amazing is it? Well, we thought it might be useful to put it into perspective by looking at what else has happened in the world while state lawmakers have been working slavishly to finish work on the budget.

First, a quick recap: The House released its budget plan to the public on April 13, 2011. This marked the beginning of formal legislative consideration of the budget. The House passed its version on April 28, and the Senate followed suit on May 26.

April 13, the night the House released its budget, was the same night the 2011 NHL Playoffs started. Since then, the Bruins competed in all playoff rounds and eventually won the Stanley Cup for the first time since 1972.

On April 28, when the House passed its budget version, Prince William and the former Ms. Kate Middleton were still single. The royal wedding took place the next day (and it was supposedly being watched on live television by Representative Mark Cusack and others reveling in the House Speaker's Office/Chamber). That same day, jury selection in the corruption trial of former House Speaker Sal DiMasi was just beginning. That trial would last several weeks, until DiMasi would be found guilty of 7 out of 9 charges on June 15 (the same night the Bruins won the Stanley Cup).

The House budget was already passed and sent to the Senate days before the United States found and killed Osama bin Laden (May 1), which ended a manhunt ongoing since 2001, and weeks before the FBI captured fugitive Whitey Bulger (June 22), who had been on the lam since 1995. And both the House and Senate budgets were done deals before tornadoes struck western Massachusetts (June 1) and Sarah Palin visited Boston (June 2).

Yet, despite the fact that the House and Senate budgets were originally heralded upon passage for their frugality and austerity (translation - they didn't really do anything), there is no agreement on their terms many weeks later.

We're sure lawmakers are working tirelessly to complete work on the budget as soon as possible in advance of the upcoming long holiday weekend. Yeah, right. Could a last-minute deal still be reached so lawmakers could called in on the Friday before a long weekend to pass the budget? Oh, the humanity...

Where's the pork?

It's interesting that Massachusetts legislators have not approved a final budget for Fiscal Year 2012 yet, despite the fact the fiscal year starts just days away on July 1.

The House and Senate adopted differing versions of the budget weeks ago. Since then, negotiators from both branches have been trying to resolve differences in a conference committee.

But, setting aside questions about the fiscal condition of the Commonwealth and value judgments about how state leaders are choosing to deal with them... the differences between House and Senate budget plans don't seem to be that controversial or substantial. Plus, in recent times, most of the interesting spending has been made mid-year in supplemental appropriation bills, not in the budget itself.

So, what's the hold up?

We're not sure. But, we can guess at several possible reasons.

It's possible that the House and Senate aren't really rushing to reach agreement. That could be out of laziness, or a deliberate attempt to stall and deprive Governor Patrick of a full ten-day window to review the budget before he issues vetoes. Or, perhaps a series of bad stories about the Legislature (Cusack, DiMasi, and now a Bulger in the news) has been distracting.

It's also possible that there is a lot of negotiation going on behind the scenes, but that it's not really about the budget at all. For example, it's possible that budget concessions are being used as chits to negotiate future deals on issues like casino gaming, which has been rumored to be waiting in the wings for later this session.

What's the real reason and when will be get a budget in place? Only time will tell.

Top Ten Things Overheard This Morning At The 2011 Mass. House Democratic Leadership Retreat at UMass Amherst

10. "Dude... what time is it, and where are we right now?"

9. "Today's presentation by Evergreen Solar on the topic of sustainable economic development has been canceled. This retreat will be in a brief recess..."

8. "Ooh. It snowed. Mistah Speakah, can we go outside and build a snowman?"

7. "I call shotgun on the way back."

6. "Very nice presentation on economic statistics, Professor. Now, can you please tell us, what's the probability of a win at today's Sox opener?"

5. "OK, ok. Here's a pop quiz: Two major companies leave Massachusetts at the same time, one traveling South at a hundred miles an hour, the other one..."

4. "Hey, this place is really nice. What do they do here?"

3. "Why, yes, I'm always happy to pose for a picture. Um, wait, are you a reporter?"

2. "SOOO glad we didn't invite the Republicans to this..."

1. "Psst. Hey, can we claim a per diem for this?"

Sometimes less is really more

According to the Boston Globe, Governor Patrick has recommended a 0.5 percent pay cut for state lawmakers in 2011, worth about $300 off of legislators' base salary of $61,440. (Full Globe story)

We support the move. But, we think this could actually end up as a raise for some lawmakers. Here's why:

For several years now, a handful of state legislators have been refusing to accept salary increases as a matter of principle. The most recent example was in 2009, when certain members from both parties refused to accept a $3,203 raise (or pledged to donate it to charity) while the rest of the state was in financial difficulty.

Today's action by the Governor - appropriate and admirable on his part - raises an interesting possibility for legislators. We wonder: will legislators who refused the pay raise back in 2009 maintain their 2011 salary at $58,237? Or, will they 'accept' the Governor's pay cut and use it as cover to set their 2011 salary at $61,140 – for them, a pay increase of almost $3,000 from 2009 which also has implications for their pensions in the future.

If legislators do choose to increase their salaries this way, they could actually end up costing the state money: every $3,000 increase is worth about 10 cuts of $300 each. Not to mention the fact that it would be hypocritical.

Stay tuned.