While vetoing items and quickly signing the mass budget over a holiday weekend, the governor quietly slipped in a $130 million supplemental spending plan. Here's what she's pushing next.
Governor Maura Healey's signing of the annual budget this month was faster than any new Massachusetts governor in the last 25 years. And she did it on a holiday weekend. Most governors take at least a week after the final Senate approval, but she moved within days. In this process, she made some vetoes. State House News Service reporter Chris Lisinski details what didn't get enacted.
Chris Lisinski, SHNS: About $130 million worth of spending did not make it into the final budget. A bunch of different, roughly small line items add up to that total. The biggest one is about $27 million from the Group Insurance Commission, which funds health insurance for public employees. And that spending cut is specifically aimed at limiting coverage of GLP-1 weight loss drugs [developed for diabetes like Ozempic and Wegovy] when not medically necessary. That's something that a lot of private insurers have reined in as costs on that front spike.
Carrie Healy, NEPM: And Healy also filed a new $130 million supplemental budget. So can we start by breaking down what's in Healey's supp budget?
Yeah, this is an odd budget because it's not exactly new spending. It's really a 'cost control federal response sup[plemental] budget' with money that could be deployed if the state's budget picture gets particularly bad down the road, and some policy that would give the governor greater spending cut authority down the line.
Is it usual for a governor to have a $100 million pool of money, a flexible pool of resources to dip into?
Yes and no. It's a little unusual to see on the day the annual budget is signed, the governor call for a flex account of this sort. But state government by practice keeps money stashed in couch cushions all over the place. That's pretty standard, and I don't think very controversial or unusual because, you know, budgeting is difficult for anyone, let alone when the base spending is $61 billion. So, there's always going to be pools here and there that can be tapped as needed.
There's $30 million set aside in that supplemental budget for housing. Specifically, what's that money supposed to do, and why now?
Thematically, it's the same idea as the rest of the money and the underlying thrust of this bill, which is to be prepared for major changes that could hit the state as a result of federal policy. But the $30 million there would be for housing safety net programs that state officials are worried might see cuts under the so-called ‘big beautiful bill’ that President Donald Trump signed into law.
Also included in this bill is other authority that doesn't come with a price tag. The governor is asking for more power to move money around, and even make cuts across the whole budget. How is that different from what the governor is able to do right now?
Yeah, it's a great question. Right now, you’ll hear it referred to as “9C cuts." The governor has the authority to trim spending partway through the year, if it looks like the budget isn't going to be in balance, but only from the executive branch.
Executive branch spending makes up, I don't know, 50 to 60% of the budget.
There's other areas like quasi-public agencies, the attorney general's office, the Legislature, that right now a governor simply cannot touch when he or she needs to trim spending in the middle of the year.
This supplemental bill that Healey sent back would -just in this fiscal year- not permanently and only if we pass a certain threshold of fiscal precarity, broaden the scope and allow the governor to trim from anywhere in the entire state budget.
So, what would trigger that threshold for that new authority to cut spending? And could that be a tough sell with some lawmakers?
I believe it's a $400 million shortfall is the threshold. So, if state revenues fall $400 million below projections or federal cuts end up totaling $400 million or more, that authority would come into effect.
Even with that control, it certainly could be a tough sell to lawmakers, who, historically speaking, like having, say over the budget and don't really like relinquishing authority to see that spending cut.
And do you get any indication of when lawmakers might take this bill up?
No. They've been really quiet about their plans to take it up. I would think that the governor wants to see this addressed sooner rather than later, so that her team knows what tools they have and don't have as the financial picture becomes clearer.
But, you know, Beacon Hill works on weird timelines, as we've seen over and over again, so, there's really no saying what the actual decision will be.