As regular readers are probably aware, over the past several weeks, Reminder Publishing has been reaching out to and speaking with members of the Legislature’s Western Massachusetts delegation to give readers an idea as to their legislative priorities for 2025.
Obviously, much of the focus was on making sure the four westernmost counties are not forgotten. State Rep. Angelo Puppolo, for instance, pledged to “fight for every penny” for the area. The Springfield Democrat characterized the local delegation as a group of “seasoned legislators [who] collectively, as a unit, speak in one voice.” It was a common refrain among many lawmakers our reporters spoke with.
Of course, praise for the HERO Act and passage of a bill to combat substance use disorder was also effusive.
Once getting past the standard rank and file lines of sticking together and fighting for the proverbial “little guy” of Western Massachusetts against the imperious forces of Boston and Beacon Hill, there were some interesting tidbits revealed by some legislators, including a refreshing statement made by state Sen. John Velis.
In talking with Staff Writer Tyler Garnett, Velis opined, “We need to get back to the kitchen table issues” — a sentiment that rang very true. Velis’ assessment that the Democratic party has lost touch with what matters to the working class in America and especially Western Massachusetts is an astute one. It’s also one that the unenrolled fiscal conservative and social moderate writing this column has discussed several times over when assessing the state of the commonwealth with friends.
The canary in the coal mine is the fact that young families are leaving Massachusetts, faced with a double-whammy of lack of affordability and long-term concerns about the health of local schools and infrastructure. A 2024 report from Boston Indicators raised a red flag, illustrating a precipitous drop in the 25-44 population with nearly 23,000 leaving in 2021 and 2022. While those leaving were more often than not white, middle and high-income earners with college degrees, the numbers in this age bracket were declining regardless of race, income or level of education.
Food, housing (both cost and inventory) and heating costs are among basic living expenses putting a squeeze on middle class families. Some of these are impacted by factors beyond the control of state-level elected officials, of course.
But meanwhile, school districts and departments are threatening significant reductions — Belchertown, for example, is contemplating cuts that would eliminate as many as 30 positions after losing 17 the year before; Amherst could lose as many as 24 in the coming fiscal year with a “best case scenario” of 17: Velis’ hometown of Westfield has had hard conversations about cuts in recent years. State funding for roads has remained stagnant while inflation has not. Simply put, the same amount of cash doesn’t pave the same mileage or replace the same length of pipe that it used to.
In August 2024, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue reported the fiscal year 2024 revenue collections were 4.2% over the previous fiscal year and 2.4% over the 2024 benchmark. A big part of that increase was the so-called Fair Share Amendment, the 4% additional surtax on income over $1 million.
Certainly, as a citizen securely planted in the middle class, I’m not shedding any tears for those whose annual income laps my household’s several (and several more) times over. But the situation does beg the question: where is the money going? If we have this influx of revenue specifically devoted to schools and infrastructure, why are local agencies overseeing both constantly being forced into hard decisions about who or what are going to have to do without?
The Massachusetts Teachers Association in 2024 lauded “surging revenues,” calling them “vitally needed so school districts can hire and retain the necessary staff to meet the needs of students and provide public educators, in pre-K through higher ed, with fair wages and modern working conditions …”
Why, then, are many public schools, while leading the nation based on certain assessments, still struggling to fund positions and provide adequate resources while they try to catch up to their pre-pandemic achievement levels?
One of main the issues is the money doesn’t appear to be properly prioritized. In my mind, fiscal conservatism isn’t synonymous with spending less — it means spending intelligently. Free community college for all, for instance, isn’t quite a luxury item — it’s a useful tool. I attended community college and have extolled its virtues. I know my predecessor and colleagues in the local media did the same. But the free community college program obviously isn’t free — it came with a price tag of $117.5 million. When services in the feeder system for higher education are not up to snuff, it feels like putting performance parts on your car when you’ve got a leaking head gasket, and your tires are bald.
With the trend of younger would-be taxpayers seeking greener pastures, the state is relying more and more on an older population that has largely expressed a desire to stay but increasing difficulty in doing so. From Springfield to Longmeadow, we’ve seen older residents essentially pleading with their local officials, arguing that one more tax bill increase could mean making hard choices about whether to keep the lights on or fill the fridge. As someone who’s struggled to make these choices, I can attest that it’s a terrifying proposition.
Velis is right that the state Legislature with its Democratic supermajority needs to re-focus and reassess its priorities and how they align with the needs of constituents if they want to stem the tide. He guessed that any of his colleagues have heard the message about rising costs especially.
The question is whether they’ll actually listen.
