As soon as Acting Governor Jane Swift submitted her FY ‘03 state budget to the Legislature this January, the House, which first acts on the budget, initiated hearings, both at the State House and at various locations throughout the state.

House Speaker Tom Finneran and his budget chief, Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers, said the Swift budget rested on overly rosy economic forecasts in seeking to defend the tax cut. And right from the get-go, Finneran and Rogers made it clear her proposal to short the Commonwealth’s pension fund by $134 million and use that money for other purposes would not be on the table.

Members will recall that when Swift earlier attempted the same move in attempting to shore-up the FY ‘02 budget, she was rebuffed by the Legislature.

At a March 2002 hearing on the coming budget, State Treasurer Shannon O’Brien, guardian of the pension fund, again opposed any change in the Commonwealth’s pension funding schedule as proposed by Swift. O’Brien said that we must maintain “fiscal discipline” in dealing with pension money.

In order to set the tempo for the new budget, the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees met in a joint session on March 6 to hear testimony from a panel of top economists, including officers of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. The session was chaired by Rogers and his Senate counterpart, Senator Mark Montigny.

Economists said that freezing the income tax rate at 5.3 percent, political ramifications aside, would help close a yawning budget gap that may exceed $2 billion next year without slowing the pace of an economic recovery that appears to be starting.

Michael Widmer, president of the conservative Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, called a freeze on the income tax cut “the common sense approach,” combined with budget cuts to resolving the state’s budget crisis.

The comments came as lawmakers, especially Democratic legislative leaders, weigh a host of unpopular tax increases to offset what is expected to be the deepest budget gap since the late 1980’s. Meanwhile, Swift has pledged to veto any tax hike or new tax that hits her desk. Her stance on taxes is the cornerstone of her governorship and will be for the remainder of her term.

“Association members will recall that our November 2000 Voice led with a VOTE NO ON 4 headline (tax cut),” reminded Association President Ralph White. “We explained if a recession were to come, the depth of the tax cut, mandated by Question 4, would endanger state and local services.”

It was only four months later - March 2001 - that the recession started and the state and local governments have been sliding down a slippery slope ever since.

In letters to his constituent towns, House Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers has warned selectmen to discount the Cherry Sheet and Chapter 70 money, but also factor in a 10 percent cut in state money coming into cities and towns next year.

“Even though the market has picked up, the state really won’t receive the full benefit of its revenue recovery until FY ‘04,” said White. “But we’ve been through this before, and we’ll weather the storm.”

Acting Governor Jane Swift’s March 19 decision not to run for governor changes nothing.

While Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, will be weighing in with his opinions, the deficit remains and Swift remains rigid in her unwillingness to compromise with the Legislature on revenue sources.