Legislative budget writers are supposed to deliver a yearly spending plan to the governor by July 1 — at least that’s what it says on paper.
In practice, lawmakers have routinely blown past that deadline year after year, handing a spending document to the chief executive well past the state of the new fiscal year, which has in turn forced the need for interim budgets until a full one is in place.
As the clock ticks down to July 1 this year, top Democrats in the House and Senate have not publicly pledged to turn in a fiscal year 2025 budget on time. Gov. Maura Healey signaled she is not taking any chances when she filed a $6.9 billion plan to cover spending through July 31.
But experts told the Herald that lawmakers’ willingness to ignore the annual due date has little immediate impact on the state — though major delays could create problems — and at least one top Democrat acknowledged this week that the timeline is more of a “point of pride” than anything else.
Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation President Doug Howgate said the timeliness of a state budget is one thing fiscal watchdogs consider when they assess the overall fiscal health of Massachusetts.
Those same organizations, however, would rather see a balanced budget that builds upon reserves turned in late than an unbalanced plan handed over by deadline, he said in an interview this week.
“I don’t want people to think that this is the only thing they care about,” he said. “The fact that the state has a very large stabilization fund balance and has, I think, done some good things fiscally is going to weigh more than tardiness of state budgets. But like everything else, it kind of sends a signal.”
It is hard to pinpoint how far along House and Senate budget negotiators are in producing a compromise agreement based on the two different $58 billion documents the branches passed earlier this year, though House Speaker Ron Mariano said this past week that talks were in an “advanced” stage.
Even with that note of optimism, Senate budget chief Michael Rodrigues said meeting the July 1 deadline is “nothing more but a point of pride” because governors typically file an interim budget to keep state government running.
“We’d like to get it done by July 1, but as far as a practical point or substantive point, it really doesn’t matter,” the Westport Democrat said. “It’s more of a point of pride. I would like for my own personal pride to be able to successfully complete the budget negotiations by July 1. But pride aside, nothing really happens or changes.”
Spokespeople for Gov. Maura Healey and her budget-writing office did not respond to a request for comment. A letter included alongside the temporary spending plan she filed asked lawmakers to take “favorable action” on the interim budget no later than June 24.
If the past is any indicator of the present, a late budget this year would be no surprise to anyone.
“You don’t get rich betting on on-time budgets so I would take the over if I had to choose,” said Evan Horowitz, the executive director of the Tufts University Center for State Policy Analysis.
The Legislature has delivered 15 budgets to various governors after the July 1 deadline since 1999, when elected officials debated the fiscal year 2000 plan, according to a historical record produced by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
The fiscal year 2024 budget proved to be the latest non-pandemic-era spending plan to hit a governor’s desk since 2001, when lawmakers, mired in the fallout of a recession spurred by the dot-com bubble burst, spent more than four months privately debating difficult budget cuts before eventually handing over an agreement to the executive office in November.
“Clearly (the deadline) doesn’t matter to lawmakers, but it should matter to the general public. On a high level, it’s disrespectful to all the taxpayers that the state can’t obey a simple deadline on probably the most significant piece of policy they sign every year,” Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance spokesman Pual Craney told the Herald.
Governors have routinely filed interim budgets over the years, sometimes more than once at the start of a new fiscal cycle, to keep the lights on and bills paid while the Legislature figures out how to hash out a final accord.
The move effectively nullifies one of the few mechanisms in state government to force legislators to produce a deal on time, said Horowitz of the Tufts University Center for State Policy Analysis.
“The deadline is supposed to force you to do it. The risk is, you blow past the deadline, and then what’s forcing you to get to an agreement at that point?” he told the Herald.
Without a full plan in place, keen-eyed observers will notice that new programs cannot start and expansions to existing services are put on hold. That can make it difficult for state agencies or municipalities who rely on state money to make their own spending decisions.
Howgate said the more time lawmakers are negotiating a budget, the less time they have to work out other high-profile policies, of which there are many piling up ahead of the July 31 end of formal lawmaking.
“There absolutely is kind of a competition impact where if folks in the Ways and Means Committees and other places are spending a lot of time on the budget, that’s time they’re not spending on other things,” Howgate said. “I think that’s a challenge.”
House Minority Leader Brad Jones also said budget discussions inevitably get tied into talks on other major bills.
“It’s sort of like three-dimensional chess. I’m giving the Legislature too much credit to play three-dimensional chess, but there’s a multitude of issues,” he said this week.
Materials from the State House News Service were used in this report.
