Massachusetts’ historical position of supporting and protecting all of its citizens is well known throughout the Union. This position as well as the citizens of the Commonwealth has been endangered by the recent vetoes of Acting Governor Jane Swift. While attempting to balance the budget and remain fiscally responsible the Executive and Legislature have not only removed Commonwealth funding from projects that support quality of life but, have stripped programs of their ability to sustain life. By sacrificing long-term fiscal viability for short-term political gains we all lose.

We at the Center for Social Policy, McCormack Institute of the University of Massachusetts at Boston, recognize the incredibly difficult decisions that must be made in order to maintain the functioning of the Commonwealth. Even within that context some recent decisions regarding budget cuts will have deep and long-lasting impact on the most vulnerable populations of the Commonwealth. The attempt to achieve short-term gains through ill-conceived cuts not only eliminates current federal cash match programs but also, will preclude programs from applying for future funding opportunities.

The immediacy of the threats to financial stability is nearly overwhelming. It is easy to lose sight of the impact of cuts when so many must be made. However, some cuts will end up costing taxpayers more money rather than save. It is not difficult to extrapolate from available data that cutting 50,000 people from MassHealth will end up costing the taxpayers more through increased emergency room visits. Reactive treatment will always be more expensive that preventative care.

In the area of homelessness, there is no mystery. Homelessness can be ended through prevention, housing, and access to adequate income. The current budget makes significant cuts in each of these areas. The Acting Governor’s veto to the Emergency Rental Program eliminates the only homeless prevention program at the Commonwealth level. This has been an essential program to keeping people out of the vicious cycle of homelessness, clearly a more cost effective solution. Finally, by not allowing education and training to count toward work hours for families on welfare, we ensure that they will remain unable to achieve economic independence; increasing long term needs and state costs.

Additional prevention programs in the area of hunger have been cut as well. The budget cuts to the Food Stamp program mean that legal immigrants to the Commonwealth will no longer be eligible. The cut to Project Bread’s Food Stamp Outreach program eliminates the program. The Food Stamp Outreach Program’s hotline served 29,000 people last year. How can we fail to budget enough money so everyone gets to eat?

The Outreach Program costs $500,000 per year. Half of that, $250,000, comes from the Federal government. So by cutting $250,000 from the budget the Commonwealth surrendered $250,00 in federal cash match. By cutting this program the message sent to consumers is that the Commonwealth is unwilling to spend $8.62 to make sure that those 29,000 people get to eat. Again the increase in funding for this preventative program will protect against the high financial and moral cost of long-term hunger and malnourishment.

Though we may have missed our opportunity this year to fund these vital programs there is next year. As we move through these difficult times hopefully we will have the courage to realistically examine the long-term financial and human impact of these cuts and make decisions that will serve all of us well in the future.

David Canavan, Research Associate

Michelle Kahan, Senior Research Associate

John McGah, Senior Research Associate, Eisenhower Fellow

John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs, University of Massachusetts Boston