An April 27 Boston Globe editorial, "A budget's stark truths," argues that the state's $3.6 billion shortfall is not a "gap" that can be closed by rooting out "waste, fraud, and abuse" alone; rather, it is a chasm that requires a tax hike. The editorial writer supports some cuts and doesn't think "the effort to reform pensions, ethics, and municipal benefits should relax a bit," but at the end of the day, "without some kind of tax increase, life will be unsustainable for too many vulnerable people."
It is a strange perspective from a business recently threatened with closure because of its own excesses. Clearly, the problems the Globe faces aren't ones that will be washed away simply by an infusion of cash, so why does the paper think it will work on Beacon Hill?
No, it would seem that at the Boston Globe and everywhere else, life as we know it is already unsustainable, and everyone is vulnerable. We have just lived through the decade that produced more billionaires than any before. We have listened to a president, while fighting wars on two fronts, argue that citizens should continue to spend money to strengthen the economy. As banks began to fall, succumbing to years of little or no regulation, the government tried to fix the issue by giving them more money, again without oversight, and were surprised to find the banks hadn't reformed themselves, though they'd been told to. Rather than urging reform efforts not to relax, perhaps it's time to recognize that whatever the reformers have been up to has been far from sufficient. Instead of tinkering and replacing parts, if we're ever going to expect any kind of real performance from our government, we need to take the engine out and rebuild it.
The lack of resources faced by the world, the nation, the state and the Pioneer Valley is not the problem that needs to be fixed. It's the symptom. A bucket with a hole in the bottom will never get full, no matter how much water's poured into it. But the Boston Globe thinks it knows better. So, apparently, does the Vote Yes! Northampton campaign.
"The stakes in this campaign are incredibly high," says campaign chair Marilyn Richards in a Vote Yes! campaign press release. This year, Northampton faces a $6 million chasm, and the city is one vote away from putting an override on the ballot this June that, if passed, will raise taxes to cover about a third of the shortfall.
In the same press release, City Council President Jim Dostal says, "Without this override, the Florence Fire Station would be closed much of the time, and people would lose access to their public library. And kids would lose their teachers and band and athletics and so many other fundamentals that make our education system and our city so great. If we all come together and pitch in a little, we can prevent a lot of this from happening."
No doubt the scenario sounds grim, but what's not articulated is how pouring more money into the city budget is going to fix what's broken. Before having even debated putting an override on the ballot, Dostal, and councilors David Narkewicz, Bob Reckman and Paul Spector, abandoned their legislative roles—in which they should try to represent the city as a whole—and joined ranks with the override campaign. Instead of explaining what work they're doing to ensure the city won't be facing the same hemorrhaging next year, all energies appear to be focused on scaring taxpayers into voting for the only option they're offering.
Further, instead of looking for alternate solutions or demanding a change in leadership to correct the city's plummeting fortunes, the override campaign apparently wants no debate or discussion on this topic between the two current candidates for mayor. In an internal campaign memo leaked to the Advocate, override organizers urge members to let candidate Bardsley know "he will lose support if he refuses" to adopt Mayor Clare Higgins' position in favor of an override.
All government at all levels is hurting for cash, but it's time to recognize that what's happening isn't a perfect storm, but the natural consequence of government performing badly. The good old days aren't coming back, and, in point of fact, how we behaved in those good old days is what got us in this mess. We can no longer support policies that seek a quick cash-fix rather than systemic reform.
