Acting Governor Jane Swift is staring down the barrel of her first tough decision, and I don't
mean picking who's going to run the Massachusetts Port Authority.
On Thursday, the administration announced that the annual $300 million from the tobacco
settlement will be redirected and aid to cities and towns will be slashed to cope with the
state's fiscal meltdown. On top of that, all kinds of programs are likely to be cut, including
prescription drug aid for seniors.
This comes as the governor is insisting she will hang tough on the whopping tax cut
Massachusetts voters passed last year at the behest of Paul Cellucci, then governor.
But the choices that are being made now border on the immoral.
As it is, the $246 billion tobacco settlement has become a national joke. Allegedly targeted
for tobacco-control programs, the money has been spent in state after state on anything but
public health. Massachusetts had been one of the few exceptions to that trend, one of six
states cited by the federal government for mounting effective tobacco-control programs. To
take the entire installment for next year to close a budget shortfall sends a terrible message.
Still, there may be no choice. During the last fiscal crisis, cherished programs were cut left
and right, and there really was no plausible way to save many of them. It was a
painful bloodletting, but necessary.
If that is the case now and for the near future, then one thing is clear: The state can't afford a
tax cut. At a cost of $450 million a year, it's a whopper even though the
administration prefers to think of it as repealing a tax hike.
The politics of this are very messy. Republican activists care deeply about the tax cut -- truth
is, they sometimes seem to care deeply about very little else. Republicans are only 13
percent of the statewide vote, but they're Swift's 13 percent, and she will face their wrath the
second she shows any willingness to deal on taxes.
Besides that, both parties have now enshrined government by referendum as the unsullied will
of the people, democracy in its purest form (except, of course, for Clean Elections). This
tax cut illustrates what nonsense that sort of thinking is and the kind of box it can leave
lawmakers in. The economic rationale for a cut that passed in boom time has completely
flown out the window, yet even those who oppose the cut are mostly afraid to say so. That
isn't good government, it's terrible government.
Some Beacon Hill Democrats have gingerly aired a plan to delay part of the tax cut for a
year. It's not a bad idea, though too timid, and its legislative future seems dicey,
especially given the certainty of a Swift veto.
Cities and towns will survive cuts in local aid, though far from painlessly. But the idea of
slashing nearly half a billion dollars from the state budget to deliver a marginal tax cut is
nutty, and will certainly punish the poorest residents to give tax relief to people with far less need.
Why can't a referendum ever be repealed? Why can't a leader stand up and say, "I'm not
cutting drug programs and education reform to pay for a token tax cut"?
The bad news for Swift -- and some of her likely opponents, too -- is that the tough choices
are going to keep coming, and in the heart of an election year. Taking the route of
expediency on this one will only force more difficult decisions down the road.
Since becoming acting governor, and especially since the birth of her twins, Swift has floated
on a cloud of good will. But the honeymoon has to end at some point. Good leaders pick
their battles. The tax rollback is a fight waiting to happen, and Swift could do worse than to
prove her mettle by taking on her party, choosing the side of right, and managing the crisis.
Otherwise, it will manage her. And if that happens, the Swift administration could be a short
one.
