I have avoided reflecting too heavily on the depressing situation between lawmakers and Higher Education in Massachusetts. The situation is ticklish and I worry about voicing a negative viewpoint about the players, who can't come to any kind of reasonable arrangement or the University, which is trying the best it can under trying circumstances. I think the best comment I've seen on the topic was made by Richard Rogers, who was recently appointed to an administrative position under the provost: faculty advisor to the provost on instruction, or something like that. In comments at the Celebration of Teaching dinner he told a story about a colleague who made tenure recently, but almost immediately accepted a position at another institution and left. He went to her and asked "Why? Why did you leave?"
"Are you sure you want to know?" she asked?
"I can take it.," he replied. "What was it? Was it your colleagues? Was it your chair? Was it your dean?"
"Floors," she said. "It was the floors. When I went to give my talk, the floors were clean!"
UMass Amherst, which was cut and cut and cut in the 1980s, never really recovered. At the end of the 90s, the budget had almost come back to where it was before the draconian cuts of the 80s. During that period, the buildings deteriorated and all kinds of support were understaffed. In addition, the University made the critical investments necessary to stay competitive in spite of the restricted budgets: developing a technology infrastructure and trying to attract the faculty that would keep the University at the forefront of emerging disciplines. Now the University is being cut again. And again. And another huge cut is looming this year.
I feel the University teetering at the edge of an abyss. In the Biology Department, three of the searches that have been conducted attracted capable faculty who, after staying here for several years, have decided to leave. One faculty member, who was publishing regularly in 
Nature, left when after 3 years the promised renovations to his space still hadn't been completed. This story is repeated all over the campus: the University has been crippled by a lack of funding. The Lazare Report described the situation before the cuts began
UMA has no measures that rank it in the top 50 of all universities, but three measures rank it in the 25-50 range among public universities (National Academy Members, Prestigious Faculty awards, Doctoral Degrees Granted). [...] UMA's greatest strength is its faculty and its greatest weakness is its endowment assets.
[...] capital revenues were lower than all but one of the peers, and 60% below the peer average.
UMass Amherst may be even further behind its peers if we adjust for regional differences in the cost of living. The Northeast corridor and southern California have relatively high costs of living compared with the South, Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions. If one focuses on the four peers in the "high cost" areas (Rutgers. UC Santa Barbara, UConn and U Maryland), UMass Amherst falls behind the average by more than 10% [...]
To reach the peer average, UMass Amherst's state support would have to increase by nearly $8 million [...]
Needless to say, this hasn't happened. The faculty are trying the best they can, but conditions get worse and worse. The state has refused to fund the faculty contracts they signed, so salaries have been flat for years. You have to ask yourself: why should you stay someplace where they can't even afford to keep the floors clean? Where the ceiling leaks and ceiling tiles aren't replaced for years. Where two thirds of the lights in the hallways are burned out. These are indicators of what hasn't been cut: the computer lab has new computers. The conference room has a new data projector. There are plans to set up at least a limited wireless infrastructure. The core elements of the research and teaching missions are being supported to the last gasp, but it's demoralizing to see the whole institution teetering on the brink.