Latest news with #MassachusettsTaxpayersFoundation
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Beacon Hill's budget-balancing act just got trickier: An expert explains
As Massachusetts lawmakers wade into negotiations to iron out a fiscal 2026 budget agreement, budget season in Washington, D.C. creates a massively uncertain economic landscape. Analyzing that data, understanding proposals and putting recommendations out for a path ahead is the focus of Doug Howgate and his team at the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. As president of the business-backed public policy research organization, Howgate provides key input that helps guide the state's fiscal and economic future. The group recently released its annual House and Senate budget analyses, along with other reports pertaining to the changing federal outlook and its potential impact on resources and spending in Massachusetts. 'So many of these challenging things are going to be made in connection to resource decisions,' Howgate said in an interview at his downtown Boston office. 'How do we make sure that those conversations are coordinated across the branches of government in a way that makes sense for how we determine how to use our scarce resources?' In a recent conversation with State House News Service, Howgate talked about what's ahead for House-Senate budget negotiations and how lawmakers might adjust to the shifting fiscal realities of the Trump administration. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length. Q: Have you been surprised by anything in particular this budget season? A: I don't think anything within the governor's budget, House budget or Senate budget has been overly surprising. I think what's been surprising is the context in which those budgets are being developed. We knew from the election in November that there were going to be changes, but with any of those things, it's hard to assess exactly what's going to happen. I think the uncertainty related to federal policy, related to things like Medicaid or taxes, that was probably something we knew we were going to have to be tracking. Especially in April, with things like the initial tariff announcements, there began to be more of a feeling that things economically may be more volatile or uncertain than we expected. Q: You believe the best budget approach for the Legislature is to follow its usual budget timeline, then reassess before sending a final product to the governor. Why? A: It didn't make sense to make adjustments in April, and then to make another adjustment in May, and then to reassess in June. When you think about the factors in play, one of those big factors is state revenue collections. We know now what April collections are, and especially in terms of what they mean for the budget and for surtax revenue, for capital gains revenue — it gives you more of a sense of some of those moving parts at the state level. A lot of the uncertainty continues to be federal policy related to things like Medicaid, or other places where federal spending directly impacts state spending. We still don't know everything, but I believe firmly that we're in a better position to assess risks and potential outcomes now than we were two months ago. It's really that balance of putting in place a strong fiscal plan on the governor's desk, but also not trying to react to every change in the moment and increasing some of the chaos if you make several adjustments throughout that process. Q: How do fluctuations and uncertainties in the stock market and capital gains revenue play a role here, and how can lawmakers best respond? A: What the economy looks like at one point in time, and then what it looks like 12 months from now — they look like two different things. The benefit of the uncertainty with the Trump administration is we're probably more attuned to that reality now than we normally are. We do have in place mechanisms to try to mitigate some [revenue source volatility]. At the same time, if the economy goes haywire, that will have a huge and direct impact on the state budget. April revenues were quite strong in Massachusetts. So much of that activity — surtax collections, capital gains — is reflective of where the stock market was over the last 12 months, not where it's going. We need to disentangle that. Another important thing for budget makers to note is that a sustained economic downturn is the biggest fiscal risk the state budget faces in any given year. Given that we've probably seen greater uncertainty now than we've seen in the last several years, we need to make sure we're putting in place a spending plan that creates options for the state to respond to an economic downturn, not just the implications of various federal policy changes. A: Over the past decade or so, adjusting revenues based on new information became something that was not uncommon. Before the pandemic, you had a couple of years where revenues really disappointed compared to initial projections, so in June, it was required that the overall revenue threshold was reduced. During the pandemic, we saw the House, Senate and administration work pretty well together to adjust both their revenue baselines to make sure they were accommodating for this huge unknown. And then you had the flip side in FY22 and even FY23, where we had this unexpected surge in tax collections and it became apparent that the revenue numbers built were just not operative anymore. We have a bit of muscle memory there, using analysis from the administration and groups like ours to make thoughtful adjustments. You also have seen, in the past, exercises where the governor's veto authority comes more into play, and I'm sure that's something that the Healey-Driscoll administration will be monitoring. My guess is that the focus will be to coordinate action in June to make sure that all three branches are working together to craft a budget with a sensible revenue forecast. A: Generally, from a fiscal and a resource standpoint, they take a pretty similar approach. You're talking about two budgets that both spend about $500 to $570 [million] less than the governor's budget proposal and that didn't adopt a number of the revenue-raising proposals that the governor put forward. Obviously there are differences. One thing that jumps out is you've got two different approaches on the governor's transportation finance proposal. The House largely adheres to what the governor proposed. The Senate differs in things like multi-year support for the MBTA. It moves more money into other areas of the transportation sector. What will be interesting when we see these two things reconciled is, because of this overarching context of needing to reassess revenue assumptions based on what's happened since January, you could see them start from that standpoint of, 'Okay, what do we think we have to work with for resources?' And then, 'How do our different spending proposals plug into that new reality?' Q: There are concerns about the about the 6% spending bump over the FY25 annual budget, especially in an uncertain context. Is that worth concern? A: Getting overarching spending growth in line with long-term revenue growth has got to be a high priority for everyone. That's something that really, starting with the pandemic, we've had some challenges with — increasing demands on the system, significant revenue growth for a time period, and building in cost pressures that are hard to steer the ship on from one day to the next. Managing long-term spending obligations is going to be challenging. These are programs that impact millions of Massachusetts residents. One of the things we see in this budget are proposals to look at the personal care attendant program within MassHealth to say, how do we make some longer-term reforms in the program that are going to bend the cost curve there going forward? I think we need to be honest with ourselves, that making a change from day-to-day is not always easy, is not always appropriate. But how do we make sure, as we're putting together the fiscal 2026 budget, we're also doing it with a view towards managing costs in 2027 and beyond? That's even more important, I think, when we look at all the federal uncertainty. Q: The House budget puts a pause on decisions surrounding vocational school admissions policies. The Board of Education already approved a path forward. What could this say about the Legislature's role in shaping that conversation? A: I think the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education certainly has a role in setting regs, though the effectiveness of those regs is only going to be as successful as their ability to also build consensus within the Legislature and the rest of the administration. Any one of those entities can really undo work or press pause on moving forward. I think it speaks to two things. One, we do need to take a new look at how we make sure that our process for equitably ensuring access to vocational schools works in the current world. And [two], we need to do it in a way where the administration and the Legislature, and all the stakeholders, feel like they've had an opportunity to make their voices heard. We just need to make sure, at the end of that process, that the ability of students in Massachusetts who can use that vocational opportunity to achieve economic opportunity and build a career that is right for them, not get lost in the shuffle. A process that has that consensus across the board — the Legislature is probably going to have to be a part of it, no matter what. Q: What are your thoughts on the Senate's move to lower prescription drug costs in its budget? A: The Senate's been remarkably consistent in terms of advancing pretty aggressive proposals [related to] drug cost limitation and things like that. We had major compromise drug cost legislation signed into law at the end of [2024]. What's happening with the implementation of that bill? Are we moving forward with this stuff that is in law, that we had broad consensus on, and making sure we're doing that as impactful a way as possible? That should take priority over starting new reforms before the initial reforms have gone into effect. We are [also] seeing a number of health care and drug and life sciences issues coming into play at the same time, whether it's in terms of ongoing strains on the health care system, cost pressures for premium payers, cost pressures for the state — at the same time, financial pressures on providers and uncertainty with federal Medicaid, and the critical role that the health care sector and the life sciences sector play for Massachusetts residents and a broader economy. One larger concern I would have is, how do we make sure we're not adding too much to that unknown policy mix that we have to adapt to and react to? Q: You've referenced proposed cuts to Medicaid multiple times. What's on your mind there? A: This is one of the reasons why we felt like it was so important to not make premature adjustments to the spending framework back in April and May. While we don't know exactly where the federal budget is going to go, we've got more clarity in at least where the [U.S.] House wants to go. Those proposals would significantly negatively impact the state's Medicaid population and the Medicaid program in the budget. That said, they are not as immediate or as significant as some of the proposals we originally saw. To me, this is a bit of a commercial for, 'We want to be proactive and we want to be decisive, but we also want to make sure we have as much information as we can have before we make a decision.' The Medicaid proposals, as they're formulated right now, won't have an FY26 impact on the state budget or the state program. A lot of the big adjustments we see are in FY27 through FY29, which doesn't mean they're not very important -- they are, but that timeline really matters. As we think about the proposals in there, whether it's work requirements or other things like that, it's important to also differentiate between what's going to reduce the amount of federal resources available to the state budget associated with spending requirements, and what is likely to reduce enrollment in the state's Medicaid program, which will have a big knock-on effect on the health care sector and things like our health safety net. The budget impact in the near term is less clear cut than, say, just a reduction in the federal Medicaid reimbursement. That's why knowing what they're actually proposing and the timeline is so critically important. Q: Has there ever been a situation, in your memory, where the state has had to accommodate a similarly massive gap? A: Over the last 15 years, the thing that probably gives us the best kind of experience for this is actually sustained economic downturns during the Great Recession, where we saw billions of [dollars of] loss in state tax revenue, and at that time, a lot of discussion and action on Medicaid service reductions and things like that. That's where we've seen a lot of the debates on Medicaid policy that maybe policymakers could draw upon. To me, there's a more important lesson there, which is what is included in the bill working its way through Congress right now is important, but what is equally and potentially even more important for the Medicaid program, let alone for the state budget, is: are we prepared to withstand a potential economic downturn as well? Because that can force decisions within a program like Medicaid just as fast or faster than Medicaid policy proposals being discussed in D.C. Q: What do you view as the potential fiscal and economic costs of Trump administration research funding and immigration policies in Massachusetts? A: You can't quantify to the dollar what the impact of a specific kind of policy direction is, necessarily. When we talk about the impacts of the Trump administration, one of the things we talk about is the impact of what we would call 'process uncertainty' — of not actually knowing what the policy is, how it's going to change, what you need to react to. That creates paralysis in the system, makes people reluctant to act, impacts decisions from higher ed institutions about admittance or about how they're going to spend their money. It certainly impacts state or nonprofit or private sector actors, as well. Irrespective of where those policies land, the uncertainty that it comes with has a huge cost. At the same time, you think about the work that we [and others] have done about Massachusetts competitiveness, our challenges sustaining a growing labor force. One of the biggest ways we've been able to address that in recent years has been through immigration. Any time you're talking about policies that are going to dampen immigration going forward, that has a profound impact on Massachusetts's ability to grow its economy and its labor force. Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The piece of the Mass. budget that passes all understanding
If there's one thing that's true about politics, it's that voters rarely care about how legislation gets done as long as it gets done in a relatively timely fashion, doesn't cost the Earth and manages to make their little corner of creation a tiny bit better. That's particularly true during budget season on Beacon Hill, which has now officially entered that precarious stage where, if things are going to go wrong, they are going to go wrong in the most gloriously spectacular way possible. Here's why: The competing $61 billion-ish budget plans approved by the majority-Democrat state House and state Senate, respectively, along with the $62 billion iteration offered by Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, all increase state spending from the year before. The $61.5 billion budget the Senate approved last week, for instance, comes in $70.3 million less than the budget approved by the House, and $568.1 million less than the spending plan that Healey sent to lawmakers earlier this year. Senate lawmakers nonetheless ladled on $81.1 million in new spending before they took their vote, according to an analysis by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Senate lawmakers also set up difficult policy fights with the House on liquor license and vocational school reform and health care matters, Axios Boston noted. Thus, there is a high likelihood that things could go screaming off the rails. Then there's this. The Senate plunged forward with its version of the fiscal blueprint for the new fiscal year that starts July 1 by assuming that the $16 billion in federal funding that provides the undercarriage for their budget plan is still going to be there for them. Ditto for the House and Healey. That's despite some deeply ominous sabre-rattling from Washington. Though Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairperson Michael Rodriques, D-1st Bristol/Plymouth, has warned 'all bets are off' if Congress moves ahead, as expected, with deep cuts to Medicaid. At first glance, this is kind of like splashing out for that lease on the Rolls-Royce, expecting you'll have the cash to cover it, and then hoping for the best if you don't. The pro-business Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance was decidedly not amused by that tactic, also noting that senators added tens of millions of new spending, even as they sounded the alarm about 'uncertainty' from Washington, D.C. And spending will likely grow even more once the House and Senate cut a deal on the final budget sometime later next month or early July, the think-tank observed. 'There's simply no credibility left for lawmakers who talk about fiscal uncertainty while voting for the largest budget in state history,' Paul D. Craney, the group's spokesperson, said in a statement. If lawmakers were 'serious about economic uncertainty, they would have tightened the belt, not let it out,' Craney continued. He's not wrong. Just this week, Healey and Democratic U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey were in Revere sounding the alarm about looming GOP cuts to Medicaid on Capitol Hill. Read More: A 'historic battle': Mass pols protest Medicaid cuts in 'Big Beautiful Bill' | John L. Micek Michael Curry, the president & CEO of the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, has warned that MassHealth, as Medicaid is known in the Bay State, bluntly said the program would be 'unsustainable without the federal partnership, the federal funds.' That's about as clear a warning shot as lawmakers are going to get. MassHealth is among the biggest fixed costs in the state budget. And federal cuts will mean higher costs and a strain on the state's health care system, Curry told Commonwealth Beacon last week. Still, the Legislature — as a public institution — has a flexibility that private employers and families balancing their checkbooks don't have, Jerold Duquette, a Central Connecticut State University political science professor who tracks Bay State politics, said. And that's the ability to pass supplemental budgets and access the state's multi-billion dollar Rainy Day Fund — even if top budget writers have said the latter option is currently off the table. So while planning a budget where a large chunk of funding may disappear seems irrational, 'what they are doing is rational,' Duquette said 'The reason we think it's irrational is because they're politicians,' Duquette said. 'Why would you make the assumption that you're going to lose an effort to keep the money? This is not kicking the can. It's the exactly rational thing to do.' Lawmakers have until midnight on June 30 to get a deal on a new budget. They haven't hit that deadline in years, though Rodriques repeatedly has told reporters that he's optimistic that they will this year. It requires the same kind of suspension of disbelief that Duquette's analysis demands. But if Beacon Hill is anything, it's stubbornly rational in its irrationality. So who knows? A 'historic battle': Mass pols protest Medicaid cuts in 'Big Beautiful Bill' | John L. Micek Mass. Rep. Trahan's 'Les Miz' moment on Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' | Bay State Briefing Mass. budget debate points to a subtle but seismic shift on Beacon Hill | John L. Micek Read the original article on MassLive.
Boston Globe
21-05-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Massachusetts has already collected $2.6b in ‘millionaires tax' cash, surging past state projections
Most of the additional money raised would go to a reserve account, from which state policymakers can pluck money for one-time investments into projects or programs. Advertisement The amount of millionaires tax revenue collected this year was already expected to be significant, particularly after total But cash from the surtax is are already topping what Healey administration officials roughly expected to collect for the entire fiscal year. The surge underscores both the surtax's potential as a major revenue driver and the ongoing difficulty state officials face in predicting exactly what it will deliver. Last year, state officials initially said the surtax generated Advertisement The state's Department of Revenue won't certify the official amount raised from the surtax for this fiscal year for several months. Voters approved the millionaires tax in 2022 to levy an additional 4 percent tax on annual earnings over $1 million. At the time, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank, projected it could The cash it's produced has regularly blown past even that. The tax generated $1.5 billion between February and April of this year alone, according to state officials. That surtax is 'highly responsive' to how the stock market and economy is performing, said Doug Howgate, president of Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed budget watchdog. That makes it a 'moving target' for state officials, and a difficult one to predict as the country slides into an uncertain fiscal future. The national economy 'The concern next year,' Howgate said, 'is that we're not using this [surtax money] for sustained recurring resources. . . .It certainly looks like we're in a different stock market world now than we were 12 months ago.' Advertisement A huge millionaires tax surplus also doesn't automatically mean the state is enjoying a healthy fiscal picture. State officials have treated money from the surtax separately from other types of tax collections because under the state Constitution, the surtax revenue can only be spent on education and transportation. And despite ending last year with extra surtax money, officials still had to close Matt Stout can be reached at
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Report cites 'untapped potential' of growing Hispanic/Latino population
BOSTON, Mass. (SHNS)–Policymakers have spent the past few years wringing their hands about losing Massachusetts residents to other states, and a new report suggests Hispanics and Latinos could play a major role in helping to prevent population decline. About eight in 10 new Massachusetts residents are Hispanic or Latino, quickly increasing their share of the Bay State population, according to a new report from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and We Are ALX. Baystate Health plans to cut dozens of jobs Those takeaways were a key topic of discussion Wednesday morning, when MASSterList and State House News Service joined with We Are ALX for a forum discussion fueled by the report. Between 2014 and 2023, Hispanic and Latino people accounted for 84% of the state's population growth — a larger share than nationwide, authors said. In that same time period, Hispanics and Latinos accounted for six in 10 new jobs. The 24-page report, titled '¡Vamos Massachusetts!', concluded that Hispanic and Latino workers have played an 'outsized role' in the state economy, contributing more than one-quarter of growth in gross state product over a 10-year period despite representing only 13.5% of the population. 'This report reveals a critical truth: Hispanic/Latino residents are essential drivers of economic growth in Massachusetts and shows how much untapped potential remains,' MTF policy researcher Pablo Suarez said in a statement alongside the report. 'Closing gaps in education, workforce training, and wealth is an economic necessity to sustain Massachusetts' competitiveness,' Suarez continued. Report authors warned that significant gaps still exist, with Hispanic and Latino residents graduating college and owning homes at lower rates than other demographic groups. The report outlined an $11.1 billion wage gap between Hispanics and Latinos in Massachusetts and the overall state population. Authors suggested several policy recommendations, like improving education outcomes for Hispanic and Latino students; supporting workforce training and homeownership programs; and creating easier access to capital for Hispanic and Latino people to establish and grow businesses. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
State pours $25M into scholarship program for counselors, social workers
Massachusetts doesn't have enough social workers, mental health counselors and dozens of other types of professionals associated with behavioral health — and the shortage is growing. That's why the Healey administration is launching a two-year $25 million scholarship program for Massachusetts graduate students completing degrees or certificates in behavioral health fields. 'We need to take care of our residents in Massachusetts who are facing mental health, substance use or other behavioral health challenges and need help from highly trained professionals,' said Governor Maura Healey. 'By supporting graduate students who are building specialized knowledge in behavioral health, we're building a workforce that can support members of our communities who need care.' Kiame Mahaniah, undersecretary for health at the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, told MassLive that the scholarship is about building a resilient community through mental wellness. 'Our interest is really in how we make sure that as we come out of this pandemic, that we have the people that concerned parents can take their kids to, that schools can take their students to, that employers can refer their employees to,' he said. Read more: Could Trump's crackdown on foreign students exacerbate declining college enrollment? Noe Ortega, who is the state's secretary of higher education, agreed, stating that if there is one thing the state doesn't want to erase from the pandemic, it is the increased attention that people have been giving to the behavioral and mental health fields. Students offered the scholarship will be awarded up to $12,500 for tuition, fees and stipends for each academic year. The maximum amount given will be $25,000 per recipient across two academic years. Students have to reapply for the second year of scholarship funding. Since the pandemic, burnout and turnover in behavioral health fields have been concerns as the need for more providers has increased, especially in underserved communities, according to a 2024 Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation report. Thirty communities across the state have been experiencing the largest health inequities leading to premature death in Massachusetts, both in maternal/perinatal health and cardiometabolic health, according to the state initiative Advancing Health Equity in MA. Many of those communities, such as Greater Springfield, Roxbury and Lynn, are where more people of color reside. At the same time, only 22% of behavioral health clinicians in the state are people of color, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Given the ongoing challenges the behavioral health field has endured in Massachusetts, the state will prioritize certain applicants, such as students who speak more than one language and either live or work in communities that are experiencing high levels of racial disparities, Mahaniah said. 'One of the goals is to really focus on those communities where there are the greatest disparities and the greatest needs and obviously the hope is that if you're prioritizing people who live, study or work in those communities, you will get a more diverse workforce,' he said. The scholarship is also an attempt to have more people go into the behavioral health field, which isn't as well compensated as other health professionals are. 'The ... thing about behavioral health is that as professionals, they're also not as well paid as physicians and nurses. And so this is also an effort to try to keep making the fields more attractive by taking away as much as possible from the pain — the financial pain — of studying to compensate to some degree for also the lower salaries that they get,' Mahaniah said. Read more: Harvard changes admissions policy, offering foreign students a 'backup plan' The scholarships are funded by Massachusetts' Behavioral Health Trust Fund, which was established with American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and is managed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Behavioral Health Trust Fund was a recommendation of the Behavioral Health Advisory Commission, which was comprised of 22 members from government and the behavioral health sector. The new program follows in the footsteps of another initiative that launched last December, where institutions with behavioral programs were offered grants to support students completing unpaid internships and field placements in behavioral health fields. The applications for the scholarship program are open and can be retroactively given for the fall 2024 semester. Students enrolled in private and public institutions are able to apply through June 15, 2025, through this website. In order to qualify, students need to: Be enrolled in an eligible institution Physically reside in Massachusetts for at least one year, as of the start of the enrolled term, with an intent to remain in Massachusetts consistent with Board of Higher Education (BHE) policy Be a U.S. Citizen, lawful permanent resident or non-citizen eligible under Title IV regulations; or have an approved eligibility status designated by the BHE pursuant to the Massachusetts Tuition Equity Law or otherwise Complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) or the Massachusetts Application for State Financial Aid (MASFA) as applicable for eligible students under the Massachusetts Tuition Equity Law annually Comply with financial aid verification requirements Not be in default on any federal or state student loans for attendance at any institution, or owe a refund for any previous state financial aid program Enroll, as a matriculated student, on a full-time or part-time basis (minimum of 6 credits, or the equivalent) in an eligible behavioral health program of study leading to a baccalaureate or graduate level degree Meet Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) according to the institution's requirements and federal standards For more information about eligibility and the process, visit this website or reach out to the Office of Student Financial Assistance. This is when a judge will hear arguments in Harvard v. Trump administration lawsuit Court battle over Harvard funding freeze to extend into summer Harvard changes admissions policy, offering foreign students a 'backup plan' Closed Central Mass. college makes 'crucial' gift as one of its final acts How Trump vs. Harvard is a page out of the Project 2025 playbook
