-
-
Governor Deval Patrick
-
"With fiscal year waning, Patrick issues plan to close budget gap"
By Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff, May 7, 2009
Governor Deval Patrick is planning to use $412 million in federal stimulus money and about $461 million from a state reserve account to make sure state government can stay afloat for the next two months.
State revenues have plummeted in recent months, particularly in April, and have caused a $953 shortfall in the current budget. With just two months left in this fiscal year, and 80 percent of the budget already spent, there are few spending items to cut that would close the gap.
Patrick’s proposal would ensure that the state can get through this year, but could also hamstring state budget writers in future years by tapping one-time funding sources.
"We have done our best to implement reforms, cut costs and protect the core services of government that people rely on more than ever in times like these," Patrick said in a statement. "There are no easy or pleasant options.”
The governor’s proposal to
use about $461 million in reserve funds, which will need approval from the Legislature, will take the fund down to about $800 million, the lowest level since 2003. The state began this year with about $2.1 billion in that account. Patrick is also proposing to
suspend a $100 million planned transfer to the rainy day fund.
Patrick is also planning to
use $412 million in federal stimulus funding that is earmarked for education. Using the money involves some accounting tricks: the state will first cut its planned education payment by $412 million but then replenish it using federal stimulus money. Cities and towns will receive the same amount as they expected this year.
The stimulus money is being spent from $813 million that the federal government is giving to Massachusetts to restore state aid to school districts and higher education institutions over fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Patrick had previously proposed using $168 million for local school districts that would otherwise fall below state-mandated funding levels, and $162 million to distribute among the state’s public colleges and universities and offset planned student fee hikes. That would leave only $70 million left for the state to spend.
The solutions Patrick is proposing today addresses only part of the problems. State House officials are still trying to stitch together a budget for next year as revenues continue to fall. Economists and fiscal watchdogs warn that this year is only the first in a four-year cycle that will put strains on the state budget and could
increase calls for new taxes.
The governor and House lawmakers originally built their budgets on an estimate that the state would receive $19.5 billion in revenues next year. The House, Senate, and governor agreed this week to lower that estimate to $18 billion.
"There is no area of state government that will be immune to cuts in the budget," Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos, chairman of Senate Ways and Means, said yesterday in a statement. "We all have to share in the pain. This, unfortunately, is the stark reality we are facing."
-
Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.
-
----------
"Governor Deval Patrick: Use savings, stimulus cash to close gap"
By Associated Press, Thursday, May 7, 2009, www.bostonherald.com - Local Politics
Gov. Deval Patrick is filing legislation to close an estimated $953 million budget hole using in part a mix of state savings and federal stimulus dollars.
Expected revenues for the fiscal year that ends on June 30 have steadily collapsed, leaving the state scrambling to make ends meet. Tax collections in April came in nearly $1 billion under April of 2008.
With less than two months left to the fiscal year, Patrick said he had little choice other than to dip once again into the state’s "rainy day" savings account for $461 million — which would bring the account under $1 billion.
Patrick is also proposing using $412 million in federal stimulus dollars.
Patrick said the action will help avoid last-minute cuts to state education aid.
----------
"State pegs fiscal year 2010 revenues at $17.9B"
By Associated Press, Wednesday, May 6, 2009, www.bostonherald.com - Local Politics
Massachusetts’ shrinking budget just keeps getting smaller.
Leaders from the House, Senate and Patrick administration on Wednesday released a new estimate for how much state can expect to collect during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2009.
They peg the revenue at $17.9 billion. That’s more than $1.5 billion lower than the estimate in January.
State leaders blame rapidly deteriorating tax collections and rising unemployment.
The Senate, which releases its version of the budget next week, will use the lower figure.
That means they way be making even deeper cuts than the House, which approved its version of the budget last week using the higher estimate.
It could also put pressure on senators to adopt some kind of
tax increase.
----------
"Officials take insurance fight to Boston"
By Michael Holtzman, Herald News Staff Reporter (News from the SouthCoast), May 12, 2009
Fall River — The city continues to battle for health insurance savings, with Mayor Robert Correia and City Councilor Cathy Ann Viveiros offering different perspectives after testifying on Beacon Hill Tuesday.
Correia said the city could find relief from rising insurance costs if the Legislature allowed municipalities to remove collective bargaining from design of health plans under certain conditions.
“We want the same latitude the state has itself with insurance,” Correia said after returning from his testimony before the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government.
“We’re looking for concessions so we can survive,” Correia said. He expected the Senate budget issued Wednesday would contain $10 million less in local aid next year for Fall River.
He said the city wants to offset a 6.5 percent, or $2.3 million, hike in insurance costs next year. A proposed replacement of the top tier Blue Cross Master Health Plus by Blue Care Elect would offset most of the that increase.
The proposal Correia supported, issued by the Massachusetts Municipal Association, would allow the city to design a health plan “that is no less in benefits to the GIC (the state Group Insurance Commission plan) and do impact bargaining.”
Correia said if there was no agreement between the city and its unions, under the MMA proposal, “the city can implement the plan and the Legislature can set parameters (on) co-payments, deductibles and tiered networks.
“Currently, any changes in health insurance must be approved by the city’s 11 bargaining units,” Correia said.
He did not seem to rule out using the carrier that issued this year a competitive bid lower than Blue Cross’ bid, United Healthcare of New England.
“If the plan design is approved by the state, the city will offer city workers the health insurance plan that provides employees with the same or similar level of benefits at the lowest possible cost to the city” Correia said.
The MMA’s proposal differs from options the joint committee is considering, including a report from the Special Commission on Municipal Relief and the governor’s Municipal Partnership Act II.
Gov. Deval Patrick’s plan would require communities to match the GIC plan costs or face deductions in local aid.
The Special Commission report recommends binding arbitration if municipalities and unions cannot reach an agreement.
Both Correia and Viveiros, who recently announced her bid for the mayor's office, said they oppose that stipulation, but for different reasons.
Correia said the city needs a balance between extraordinary costs “put on the backs of municipal workers” or “put on the backs of taxpayers.”
“My feeling was that what they were doing was just mandating procedures and penalties upon local communities,” Viveiros said of the state’s approach, “and taking a punitive approach to what is really a complex and costly necessity.”
She said, “Health insurance is a local issue to be negotiated in good faith with municipal employees, retirees and taxpayers in mind.
“First the state threatens to give us less money, and at the same time tries to tell us how to spend it. That’s not right,” Viveiros said.
Correia also had angry words for the state, noting that its Chapter 70 funding would be level-funded under current proposals, while the city’s told to pay $4.5 million more for education next year during equally hard times.
“They’re holding me to a different standard, and that’s unfair. That’s wrong,” he said.
Correia was asked how with the city facing at least $9 million more for expenses next year, by his estimate, and a $10 million state cutback would see an impact from $2 million saved in health insurance costs.
“It’s a damn good beginning,” he said.
Correia also disputed contentions by the union’s chairman of the Insurance Advisory Committee, Fire Lt. Michael Coogan, that their accepting a new Blue Cross option would save the city $2 million.
Correia said it was like the city had a $1,000 expense it could not afford, and the union offered reductions to save $600, “then asked for $200 back.”
Coogan and the IAC asked if the city would bring back any of the 133 laid-off workers, including 45 firefighters, 33 police and 20 DPW workers, and was told “there are no savings.”
Correia and City Administrator Adam W. Chapdelaine were reminded a 6.5 percent insurance increase has been typical many years and did not result in layoffs.
“You’re right, it does go up every year,” Chapdelaine said, “but we don’t have our state aid cut by millions and millions every year.”
-
E-mail Michael Holtzman at mholtzman@heraldnews.com.
-
----------
The Boston Globe, Op-Ed
DAVID G. TUERCK
"The state's Chicken Little economics"
By David G. Tuerck, May 14, 2009
'IF IT BLEEDS, it leads." Or so we see from headlines prompted by a recent hearing on state revenues conducted by the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. "Worst fiscal crisis in state's history," said one headline. Declining revenues pose a "catastrophe" for the state, according to one expert. We're in for "the worst single year in the state's history," he said.
The fiscal frenzy has grown so strong that members of Governor Patrick's own party have turned against him for refusing to go along with a tax increase aimed at closing the supposed budget "gap." Senate President Therese Murray calls him "disingenuous."
So, does the current situation justify this kind of invective?
One way to gain some perspective is to look back to how a different governor faced the same problem. According to a Globe article of Oct. 15, 1994, the budget "was a chronic source of anxiety for taxpayers" and "a ticking time bomb on the verge of wrecking havoc with Massachusetts's economy" during most of Governor William F. Weld's first term in office. That period of fiscal anxiety came to an end, however, with the FY 1995 budget, which was, according to the article, "in vintage ways, a vital Weld achievement," aided by "original thinking" and "good fortune." Members of both parties praised the governor, who went on to easy reelection, for this fiscal accomplishment.
Now fast-forward to the 2010 budget. How much, we might ask, would the state have to spend in 2010 in order to achieve what was seen as sound budgeting just 15 years ago? The answer, after adjusting for inflation and population growth, is $26.78 billion.
Next let's ask how much the state could budget for 2010, given the existing revenue outlook. If we take the average of the highest and the lowest forecasts offered at the Senate hearing, we get $18.35 billion in state tax revenue. Combining this revenue with various non-tax revenues already figured on by Governor Patrick in crafting his budget, the state could spend $26.79 billion in 2010, $10 million more than it would need in order to match what Weld accomplished with his vaunted 1995 budget.
True, the state has come to spend more generously in recent years, but a return to the standards of 1995 can hardly be seen as "catastrophic." To argue otherwise is to engage in Chicken Little economics. Patrick, who has been faulted for not practicing this kind of economics, opposes a bill that would raise the state sales tax from 5 to 6.25 percent. Supporters claim that the tax increase would yield $900 million in badly needed new revenue.
On this matter, it is the governor who is right and the bill's sponsors who are being "disingenuous." For one thing, the $900 million estimate apparently ignores the fact that sales taxes drive business to other states and to the Internet. Under the new law, a TV set that could be bought for $1,000 in New Hampshire will cost $1,062.50 in Massachusetts, just another reason to drive an hour to make a big purchase and to stock up, along the way, on liquor, cigarettes, and other items.
The proposed tax hike will have negative consequences for the state economy. We predict a loss of 12,666 private-sector jobs, as stores in Lawrence and Lowell lose business to stores in Salem and Nashua. And because unemployed workers stop paying income taxes, the state will lose revenue from that source even as it gains revenue from the sales tax. In fact, the higher sales tax can be expected to yield only about $674 million in new revenue when losses in other revenues are accounted for.
Before the Legislature decides to inflict a new burden on state taxpayers, retailers, and workers, it would do well to ask just why it wants to enact a broad-based tax increase in the first place. A 25 percent increase in the sales tax would be a panicky response to what was seen just a few years ago as an exercise not in fiscal ruin but in fiscal dexterity.
-
David G. Tuerck is executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute and chairman and professor of economics at Suffolk University.
-
----------
-
-
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick
-
"Gov: State government cuts won’t cover shortfall"
By Thomas Grillo, Friday, May 15, 2009, www.bostonherald.com - Business & Markets
Gov. Deval Patrick has a message for anyone who thinks that trimming state government will solve the fiscal crisis: No Way.
“We could fire every state employee and we’d still have a $1 billion hole in the budget,” Patrick said. “We cannot cut our way to a solution.”
Patrick has proposed $1.5 billion in cuts from the state’s $30 billion budget and an increase in taxes.
Amid the biggest fiscal crisis in years, Senate and House lawmakers have proposed budgets that deal with dwindling revenues through a combination of deep cuts and tax hikes.
Michael Widmer, executive director at the business-funded Massachusetts Taxpayers Association, said
the shortfall in revenues for fiscal year 2010 is about $6 billion. “The governor is right when he says the elimination of state workers will not solve this crisis,” he said.
The state [government] employs more than 85,000 workers at an annual cost of $5 billion.There are three ways to find savings: budget cuts, new taxes and reserves, Widmer said. “Cuts have to made across the board and no program can be spared,” he added.
While the association has not taken a position on tax hikes, Widmer said the Massachusetts sales tax is “very low” compared to other states.
“If we’re going to turn to a broad-based tax, that would be the one to do,” he said. “But with the revenue shortfall, an additional $875 million in cuts will still have to be made even with a sales tax increase.”
Noah Berger, executive director of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, a think tank, said Bay State residents spend a lower percentage of income on taxes than two-thirds of the states.
“It’s a question of what quality of schools, public safety and access to health care you want,” he said. “Those are the trade-offs and there are no easy choices.”
Patrick continued to stress that, before he asks the public to pay more, he insists that the Legislature enact reforms.
“There will be pain and the pain will take more than one form,” he said. “But we can’t ask taxpayers to contribute to the status quo; we need real pension, ethics and transportation reform - not just legislation with the word ‘reform’ in the title.”
But Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said while she sympathizes with the governor’s efforts to force reform on the Legislature, she rejected calls for higher taxes.
“We fail to see why it’s the taxpayer’s responsibility to clean up the mess that the Legislature has created over decades,” she said.
Anderson is convinced
the only way to solve the state’s fiscal crisis is to replace the elected leaders on Beacon Hill with people who will spend less than they take in.
“If we throw enough of them out of office so that they begin to fear the voters again,” she said. “We cannot roll over and give them a tax increase under any circumstance.”
----------
"A tax hike primer"
By By Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff, May 17, 2009
The debate over raising taxes in Massachusetts has featured twists, turns, and plenty of limbo-like contortions by the state's political leaders. And it's not over yet, as they continue to hunt for a politically palatable way to solve a budget crisis of historic proportions.
Governor Deval Patrick initially opposed increasing the gas tax, then became its chief advocate. He "ruled out" increasing the sales tax, but three weeks later said he was "not adamantly against" it.
House lawmakers pushed a gas tax increase in December, then panned it several months later in favor of the sales tax.
Senators for months have demurred on most tax discussions, but now seem ready to embrace a sales tax increase.
Confused?
The one clear signal is that the taxes you pay probably will go up, in one form or another. Virtually every tax except the income tax has been seriously discussed, but there's been little agreement over which taxes to raise and how much to raise them.
Patrick has proposed taxes on items from water bottles to candy, and he also wants a 19-cent-per-gallon jump in the gasoline tax.
But so far, what's most likely to rise is the sales tax, which would increase for the first time in more than three decades.
The House three weeks ago approved, by a veto-proof margin, a plan to increase the sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent. The Senate this week will debate whether to follow their plan or go even further.
It would then be up to the governor to decide whether to sign such a bill or to veto a tax hike approved by his fellow Democrats.
----------
"Veto urged as resistance to tax hike grows"
By Hillary Chabot, Thursday, May 21, 2009, www.bostonherald.com - Local Politics
A veteran lawmaker who said his region near the New Hampshire border would be decimated by the 25 percent sales tax hike believes Gov. Deval Patrick - who vowed to veto the increase - still has time to erode a thin veto-proof majority.
“This governor is a great politician. He could change it if he wants to,” said Rep. James R. Miceli (D-Wilmington) of the vote by which the tax hike passed in the House. “That vote isn’t as solid as it appears to be.”
Patrick went on the offensive again yesterday, calling Tuesday’s vote in the state Senate to hike the sales and booze taxes a slap in the face to working-class families.
“To ask them to dig deeper into their pockets for higher taxes without first adopting meaningful reforms is thumbing our nose at them,” Patrick said in a statement.
Patrick met with a group of House lawmakers shortly after they passed the 25 percent sales tax hike in April by a veto-proof margin of two votes, and indicated to reporters the votes were soft. Patrick would need only three votes to uphold his veto in the Senate.
The Senate approved a total of nearly $1 billion in tax hikes Tuesday night (5/19/2009), increasing sales tax to 6.25 percent on the dollar, removing the sales tax exemption on alcohol, and allowing cities and towns to increase meals and hotels taxes by 2 percent.
Outraged small businesses and tax watchdogs promised yesterday they’ll be heard on the hikes, be it at a rally planned for the State House steps today or at the voting booth in November.
“It’s completely out of control,” said Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “The only thing they care about is not getting re-elected. We have to throw them out.”
Corie Whalen, who organized the conservative anti-tax Tea Party in Boston last month (April 2009), invited anti-tax citizens to gather at the State House starting at 11 a.m. today (5/21/2009).
“They’re misleading people when they act like necessary cuts have to be made when they haven’t worked to clear up real waste,” Whalen said.
Jeff Golden, a buyer at Downtown Wine & Spirits in Somerville, said the vote to remove the sales tax exemption from liquor at package stores means many smaller shops would close their doors.
“It’s frustrating for a smaller place. We’re operating on the margins already,” said Golden. “We’re going to have a hard time convincing people to come here when they can get it for less in New Hampshire.”
----------
"Barbara Anderson: Hold onto your wallets, it's going to be an expensive ride"
salemnews.com - Op-Ed - May 21, 2009
Governor Deval Patrick, in an effort to let us know how serious the budget crisis is, says that "if we fired every single state employee, we'd still have a billion-dollar hole."
Of course we would. Many of those employees would go out on instant pensions. Others would collect unemployment, have state-subsidized health insurance, or get a job at one of the independent authorities where they would start to accrue bigger pensions like those available at the MBTA after 23 years.
Would we still have a $28-billion state budget to go with the billion-dollar budget hole? Who would be running it and spending the money? Governor, what's your point? That payroll costs aren't much of the problem?
Can we stop being silly now?
At least Patrick's sticking to his demand for "reform before revenues." Unfortunately, the Legislature is sticking to its resistance to reform.
As various Democrats have said: "We can't reform our way out of this crisis."
Translation: "Let's go directly to the revenues."
So the Senate opened its budget debate by passing a 25-percent sales tax hike and local option taxes. Maybe it will get to reforms after my column deadline. Darn, it's hard to write while holding my breath.
Of course, what they talk about is "a blended approach," which means: Some cuts, especially to the most vulnerable recipients of state services, so they can be used to make taxpayers feel guilty about resisting higher taxes; some new money from the federal government's stimulus package, money that's being charged to future generations in an enhanced national debt; and lots of new taxes and fees, as far into the future as we can see.
Let me offer a different "blended approach": Massachusetts taxpayers will continue to pay existing taxes — already among the highest per capita in the nation — as they have for decades; and legislators will set priorities that put services to seriously handicapped citizens ahead of their and the other public employees' benefits.
Pretend you have $28 billion to spend, roughly the same amount you had last year. To keep up with minimal inflation and the extraordinary cost of state-subsidized health insurance, which would you choose:
a.) cutting services to the mentally ill, mentally retarded, and physically handicapped; or
b.) cutting benefits to public employee unions and legislators that exceed the average benefits of their employers, the taxpayers?
If you get a speeding ticket, you must also pay a $50 surcharge that the ticket says is applied to the "Head Injury Treatment Services Trust Fund." But WBZ-TV reported last week that the Legislature voted a few years ago to put half that money into the General Fund where it's spent on whatever the Legislature considers more important than helping people with head injuries.
Here's another recurring budget debate phrase: "It's not our fault, this is a national economic problem."
Translation: the federal government has been spending beyond its sustainable means, too.
One of the items driving everyone's budget crisis is the cost of health insurance. A few years ago, Massachusetts passed a health insurance reform law that was sold as an affordable way to provide basic health insurance to everyone. Unable to leave well enough alone, legislators recently increased the cost with a mandated provision for prescription drugs. Now the new law is far less affordable.
Meanwhile, the federal government, already trillions of dollars in debt, is planning to emulate the failing Massachusetts experiment.
Moving right along: "It's not just a state and a national crisis, it's worldwide!"
Ask yourself: Is the answer to a scary worldwide crisis a tax assault on the private sector that will have to somehow recover to provide the jobs that provide all the revenue for all government services?
Senate Republicans have offered a package of reforms that includes a statewide wage and hiring freeze for government employees not critical to public safety, repealing corporate welfare and eliminating that prescription-drug mandate.
The Pioneer Institute and Beacon Hill Institute have been proposing savings from various reforms for years. Newspaper editorials list some, investigative reporters find more; pension scams are all the rage this year.
But instead of addressing these, the Senate has joined the House in voting to increase the sales tax; both votes are presently veto-proof. Without reforms, this is only the beginning of tax increases, and the beginning of what Paul Nicolai, former chairman of Citizens for Limited Taxation, calls the Commonwealth Death Watch. He cites economists who warn that Massachusetts has several years of recession ahead of it, and predicts that a gas-tax increase, supported by many elements of the business community to address infrastructure needs, will have to be used for operating budgets instead, leaving the infrastructure to deteriorate.
We can't hold our breath hoping for state government to become responsible. All we taxpayers can do is make major purchases before July 1, when the sales-tax increase goes into effect, and wait for the November 2010 election. If we fire every tax-hiking state legislator we'll still have a budget hole, but maybe a better chance to keep the entire commonwealth from falling into it.
-
Barbara Anderson, a Marblehead resident and executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, is a regular Viewpoint columnist.
-
----------
"Democratic infighting escalates: Murray calls governor 'irrelevant'"
By Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff, May 22, 2009
Senate President Therese Murray escalated tensions among leading Democrats on Beacon Hill this week, calling Governor Deval Patrick "irrelevant" during a radio interview and saying she wished he would be more conciliatory with the Legislature.
Patrick, meanwhile, continued yesterday to stick by his pledge to veto a sales tax increase unless it is preceded by a variety of reforms - a position that is at the root of his deteriorating relationship with lawmakers.
"Unfortunately he's kind of making himself irrelevant at this point in the game, which is too bad, because we really need him," Murray said Wednesday night on Dan Rea's NightSide show on WBZ radio. "We haven't had a Democratic governor in 16 years. This makes no sense to me. We need to work together."
"I'm very surprised," she added, before citing Patrick's 2006 gubernatorial campaign theme. "And I want to get back to his, 'Together we can.' "
The comments are another example of the infighting among top Massachusetts Democrats, even as they attempt to navigate a budget crisis of historic proportions, an ailing transportation network, and a raft of ethics and pension-abuse scandals.
"This ought not be so hard," Patrick said yesterday, when asked to respond to Murray's comments. "And it's not about anything personal. All I'm asking is that we change a few things and that we change them in ways that I care about, and I think the public cares about."
Patrick stood by his threat to veto the sales tax passed by House and Senate lawmakers, by veto-proof margins in both chambers, unless they first approve changes on ethics, pension laws, and transportation that he finds acceptable.
"I will support the sales tax, and have said so all along, provided we deliver on the reforms," Patrick told reporters after swearing in a judge at the John Adams Courthouse yesterday. "Doing the right thing isn't that difficult. Everybody knows what the right thing is to do; now let's get that done before the budget comes to me next month."
When asked if he would veto the entire budget or just the sales tax increase, he said, "I'm going to take that part when we come to it.
"But there's no good reasons why we can't get these reforms done," Patrick said.
The Senate, following a similar move by the House, voted this week to raise the sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent, a 25 percent increase.
Yesterday Patrick highlighted several changes he wants lawmakers to make in the current legislation.
On pension reform, Patrick wants the changes to apply to both current and future employees, while the House has maintained that it should only apply to future employees.
On ethics, he wants the overhaul of state ethics laws to strengthen the State Ethics Commission; the Senate version of the bill would weaken the commission.
Patrick also said he would keep pushing for a 19-cent-per-gallon increase in the state's gas tax, which lawmakers have dismissed.
"I still think it's the best way," Patrick said.
Patrick's nuanced position on the sales tax has drawn criticism from lawmakers that he is distancing himself from the Legislature as he prepares a likely 2010 reelection bid.
"The Legislature, to their credit, has done what they believe is the hard work now by taking the votes on the budget and on the sales tax," Patrick said. "Now let's do what I think is the easy stuff and deliver some real and lasting reforms."
"It's not complicated," he added. "They know what the right thing is to get done."
-
Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.
-
----------
ADRIAN WALKER
"Not enough from the Hill"
By Adrian Walker, Boston Globe Columnist, May 22, 2009
Our legislative leaders are congratulating themselves for demonstrating the courage not to raise the state's income tax in a time of fiscal crisis.
But they can demonstrate some actual guts by deciding to police themselves.
"Reform before revenue" always sounded suspiciously like an empty slogan, and thus far it is.
But as the debate over the budget begins to wind down - budget debates without any money tend to go a lot faster - our legislative leaders are going to have to decide what reform, if any, they actually believe in.
Some people find the early results encouraging, but I'm finding it hard to get enthused. The Senate notion of ethics reform takes a harder line than current law on campaign finance violations but seeks to gut the State Ethics Commission. The House is in favor of pension reform, as long as it isn't the kind that would lower the pensions of current members. The overriding problem, as always, is that enforcement decisions are being made by the people who will have to live with them.
The Senate, at least initially, won the battle of the headlines. It promised a tough overhaul of campaign finance regulations, though on closer inspection a lot of the overhaul was a direct attack at the governor's fund-raising operation.
In fact, there was a lot less to the Senate bill than the initial reaction might have led one to believe. Its proposed changes would have been bad for the Ethics Commission, a favorite Senate target dating back to the dark days of former Senate president William M. Bulger. Some of the commission's core functions would have been transferred to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals, an agency plagued with a long backlog and chronic underfunding. It is one of the last agencies to which anyone should assign new duties, at least new duties one really wants done.
Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, said yesterday that she believes senators were surprised by the negative reaction to their brave effort at reform, especially the part involving the Division of Administrative Law Appeals.
"To give them the benefit of a doubt, I don't think they realized what an impaired agency it is," Wilmot said. "It is a very impaired agency, both in theory and in practice. It is so bad in practice that you don't even need to worry about what's wrong with it in theory."
This is the Senate president's vision of reform.
The House has been much better on ethics reform. But before lawmakers take any bows, we should note that House leadership has been lukewarm on major pension reform. That's because many of the people who would be affected are constituents, even cousins, of lawmakers. And it's because no one wants to close a loophole they might need someday.
Of course, everyone says they are for reform. David Falcone, spokesman for Senate President Therese Murray, said yesterday that the Senate is firmly committed to a better Beacon Hill.
"Our bill was passed unanimously," Falcone said. "That speaks to the fact that it is a strong bill."
Well, maybe.
The good news is that voter anger has created an environment in which some of the longtime excesses of the State House can finally be attacked. A bribery indictment, continuing revelations of pension and other ethical abuses, and the specter of higher taxes have led the public to pay attention to shenanigans that normally pass under the radar. This is all to the good.
But if your elected officials really believe what they say they do, here is what will emerge: ethics laws that curtail the cute fund-raising practices that have given lobbyists and companies too much power, stronger tools for enforcement, and an end to the pension rip-offs that are costing the rest of us millions of dollars.
Each house supports some of this, but not all of it. That isn't good enough, or even close.
-
Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com.
-
----------
SCOT LEHIGH
"Lawmakers still haven't heard us"
By Scot Lehigh, Boston Globe Columnist, May 22, 2009
WANT TO SEE meaningful reform in Massachusetts? Then pick up the phone and call your legislators.
Perhaps you've heard "reform before revenue" - and thought it actually meant something. After all, the Senate's slogan has such a nifty ring to it that Governor Patrick has adopted the idea himself.
So maybe you believed that before they raised taxes, Beacon Hill leaders would eliminate public pension pig-out of the sort that most workers, be they private- or public-sector employees, will never see.
And perhaps you figured lawmakers would address other inefficient, antiquated, unfair arrangements before they plucked more money from your pocket. Maybe you even thought they'd first clean up the way business is done on Beacon Hill.
Well, forewarned is forearmed. There's a real risk that we're on our way to higher taxes without true reform. After all, the Senate has just followed the House's lead, voting to hike the sales tax to 6.25 percent - and by a margin big enough to override a gubernatorial veto.
With the Senate tax vote, the message is clear: Legislative leaders have the numbers to do what they want.
And make no mistake, that's not good news.
"This is the moment," says Mike Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "If there aren't meaningful reforms during this time of fiscal crisis, there never will be any reforms."
Widmer's exactly right about that. If not now, when?
Yes, the state budget needs more revenue. But we also need real change, particularly since the budget crisis promises to last for several years. If we don't fix enduring problems now, future challenges will only be worse.
Still, there are plenty of interests who think the old ways are just fine - and who are digging in against changes. One small example: Yesterday, votes for a proposed state wage-and-hiring freeze for the next fiscal year melted away after the unions weighed in. "At least 10 of the members told me they were going to vote for it and didn't," says Senate minority leader Richard Tisei.
On pensions, if the Legislature has its way, it would be a quarter century before an MBTA employee actually had to be 55 and to have worked for the T for 25 years before receiving a pension. The House, in particular, has made a mockery of the governor's pension reforms, applying many important changes only to future employees; though some not-yet-elected lawmaker wouldn't be able to leave office after 20 years and start collecting an early pension, 93 current members of the Legislature could still qualify to do just that.
As with pensions, the final ethics legislation isn't yet done, but new conversation-recording powers for state investigators are gone. So too is the provision that would make it a criminal offense for public officials to take gifts worth more than $50 even when those gifts aren't aimed at influencing an official act. Further, if the Senate has its way, the State Ethics Commission's powers will be weakened.
To his credit, Patrick has repeatedly threatened to veto the sales tax increase if the Legislature doesn't first deliver substantial pension and ethics reform, plus a transportation bill. But with the Legislature's two-thirds pro-tax majorities, such a veto would be little but a symbolic gesture - unless, that is, the governor wages a determined, high-profile public fight against his fellow Democrats.
Moreover, Patrick's reforms are only part of what really needs to be done. Last week, I outlined other measures that could lead to big saving. One is granting cities and towns the unrestricted right to join the state's Group Insurance Commission or the same powers of health-insurance plan design the GIC has.
Another is repealing the Pacheco law, which makes it difficult to contract with private companies for services.
The taxpayers foundation, meanwhile, has a package of other interesting proposals.
To date, however, the Legislature has shown little appetite for any of that. (Although senators voted to loosen the Pacheco law somewhat yesterday, a Republican amendment to repeal it outright lost handily.)
So if you want real reform before revenue, it's time to pick up the phone.
-
Scot Lehigh can be reached at lehigh@globe.com.
-
----------
The Lively World
"For pols, it's about the perks"
By Milton Bass, The Berkshire Eagle, Op-Ed, Sunday, May 31, 2009
RICHMOND, Massachusetts
Think how frustrating life would be if we didn't have politicians. They allow us to vent our frustrations and blow our steam off even if they have nothing to do with what is bothering us. No matter what has gone wrong, it is so easy to say "Damn politicians" and immediately feel a bit better.
Of course, they have earned this capability by actions that have put them in a class by themselves. There have been too many misfits, stupids and crooks elected to office since the Australopithecuses first decided somebody had to institute order in the cave before the entire barrel of apples rotted.
What has been going on in Boston the past few months between Gov. Deval Patrick and the Democratic leaders of the Legislature would be funny if it weren't so frustrating. The governor wants the Legislature to shape up and reframe the florid pensions and perks they have granted themselves over the years. He also is campaigning for stricter ethics laws to prevent both male and female legislators from stuffing cash money under their shirts. The president of the Senate, Therese Murray, says the governor's desires are "irrelevant." The governor was speaking on behalf of the citizens of the whole state; Murray was standing up for her gang.
In 1866, Judge Gideon J. Tucker declared, "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session." Nowadays that also applies to women.
Talk show host Neal Boortz concluded, "If there were any people safe to criticize, they'd be politicians and child molesters, doncha' think?"
The pension boondoggles, containing self-serving clauses inserted into bills years before they become applicable to legislators' personal welfare, have been as ingenious as they are spurious, and this is the kind of thing the governor wants to abolish. So do I. How about you?
The U.S. Congress has taken very good care of itself over the years with both salaries and perks. Congressmen and senators earn good wages, have very healthy health benefits and comfortable pensions. Their campaigns are mostly financed by lobbyists and corporations who all have axes to grind.
As Mark Twain noted, "We have the best Congress money can buy." Neal Boortz summed it up thusly: "It is the rare politician — maybe even non-existent — who will admit this, but number one on the politicians to-do list is always to get re-elected. Nothing else comes close. Staying in power is job number one."
In frustration, voters have at times imposed term limits for various political bodies, but this also has its drawbacks in that you are dumping experience, even though experience is too often the problem.
Many of the world's governments are so riddled with corruption that they make our feeble attempts look almost palatable. Right now the Parliament of Great Britain is going through contortions because several members were caught with their illegal expenses headlined in the tabloids. The list for the various members that were caught out includes charging the exchequer for horse manure, pornographic movies, a duck pond, and the most notorious one of all, having a moat cleaned.
Parliament made the mistake of passing a liberal freedom of information act, giving journalists a crack at the government expense vouchers for the first time. We had the eight-year experience of the Bush administration stamping lunch menus Top Secret and getting away with it.
There had been hope that President Obama would open the floodgates on all the ridiculous secrecy but as usual he is tipping his cards up just enough to see what possibilities might be available.
So there we have it, with both state and federal legislative bodies whose main concern is primarily their own present welfare and future comfort. We want them to do what is best for the people who put them in office and they sometimes do. But too often they reach the point where they consider themselves above both the law and the uninformed public.
There is a poem by Hilaire Beloc that fits the present situation:
"Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The Politician's Corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance Sneered and slanged,
I wept for I had longed To see him hanged."
-
Milton Bass is a regular Eagle contributor.
-
www.topix.net/forum/source/berkshire-eagle/TNUE28J4IFVD1D80J
-
----------
Column: "Legislators know we'll continue to pay and pay"
Taylor Armerding - www.eagletribune.com - May 31, 2009
Here's the quote of the week — maybe of the month — from your top elected leader in Massachusetts.
This is Gov. Deval Patrick, still waving the laughable "reform before revenue" banner at the Statehouse: "If we don't get the reforms, I'm not going to support the new revenue, and in the absence of the new revenue, then we don't have a choice but to increase the tolls."
Huh?
I'll offer a translation: "Reform is irrelevant. In the absence of new revenue, we don't have a choice but to raise new revenue." Which is to say, we're going to get the money we want out of you one way or another. It doesn't really matter if we call it a toll or a tax.
I'm sure you can do the same thing at your job. If your boss doesn't give you the pay raise you want, you just tell him that you have no choice but to file vouchers for phantom expenses equal to the amount of the raise you wanted, so that you can continue to provide essential services to yourself and your family. After all, you've just commissioned a study that shows there is a gap of hundreds of thousands of dollars between what you need and what you are expecting to make over the next 20 years. You can't provide services for free, you know.
The boss won't care if he's paying you expense money instead of salary, right? Good luck with that.
I'll also offer a prediction: Whether Patrick supports them or not, taxes are going to go up. Tolls are also going to go up. Reform? Surely you jest.
This is really all you need to know, if you plan to keep living in an alleged commonwealth where we are fast approaching, if we have not already arrived at, the tipping point where the only jobs with any security, good wages, gold-plated health care and a fat pension will be those with the government. The rest of us will be indentured servants.
In the hall of mirrors known as the Statehouse, you can speak the kind of utter absurdity our governor just did — absurdities that would crack up normal people if Jay Leno said them — and everybody from legislators to the misnamed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation will nod soberly and continue to hold forth with the usual lexicon of filler phrases to obscure rampant government spending, inefficiency and patronage: "essential services," "our most vulnerable citizens," "the children," "devastating cuts," "investment in the future" and, of course, the favorite of the current season, "We can't reform our way out of this."
I am not the first to observe — but it bears repeating — that during last year's heated debate over the proposed repeal of the state income tax, so-called "cooler heads" patronizingly patted us on the head and told us not to shoot ourselves in the foot because if we did vote for repeal, then they'd have to raise the sales tax.
So, we did what good sheeple do. We voted not to repeal the income tax and the Legislature has now taken a veto-proof majority vote to raise the sales tax by 25 percent.
I can only imagine the hilarity that goes on out-of-sight at the Statehouse when legislators talk about how staggeringly stupid we, the electorate, are. They could probably double the sales tax and we'd still re-elect them because, you know, our rep or senator got our relative a job or they sent us a citation because our kid made the honor roll.
This all works for the governor too. Now that the Legislature can override his veto, he is free to rail against the failure to pass meaningful reform and can pose as a taxpayer champion because he will "try" to overturn the tax hike.
What's not to like?
This will all be presented — it already is being presented — as painful and "courageous," because they simply didn't have a choice.
But of course they have a choice. They have many choices — too many to mention here. They could eliminate ridiculous perks like the Quinn Bill and "night differential for everybody" for police. They could cut the state workforce instead of adding 2,000 to it. They could stop creating six-figure "jobs" for friends and relatives. They could eliminate, rather than marginally reduce, police officers doing road details. They could eliminate the poison pill that allows local unions to veto their municipalities' efforts to join the less expensive state health insurance plan. They could cut the pay of everybody in state government by a percentage point or two, instead of using federal stimulus money to hand out raises.
But they won't. They don't need to. We'll pay whatever they want us to pay and keep putting them back in office.
And that is the ultimate absurdity.
-
Taylor Armerding is associate editorial page editor of The Eagle-Tribune. He may be reached at 978-946-2213 or at tarmerding@eagletribune.com. Read him daily at The Soapbox, the Eagle-Tribune blog at blogs.eagletribune.com/soapbox
-
----------
"Massachusetts Governor proposes more cuts in 2010 budget"
boston.com - June 4, 2009
BOSTON --Gov. Deval Patrick has released a revised 2010 budget that does not include money from a 25 percent sales tax increase approved by lawmakers. He has threatened to veto it unless reforms are enacted.
Patrick's proposal Thursday reflects an expected revenue drop. It keeps his earlier proposed spending increases and has $794 million in new cuts. Those include a $80 million cut in non-education aid and a $164 million cut in MassHealth spending.
Also Thursday, the state Revenue Department reported that between the start of the fiscal year last July 1 and the end of May, total tax collections were $16.5 billion. That is $2.2 billion -- or 11.5 percent -- less than a year ago.
The steep drop has prompted three rounds of budget cuts and set the stage for more in the budget being developed for the 2010 fiscal year.
----------
"Budget calls for tax hikes, deep cuts: Local aid could drop by 15%; Transportation overhaul OK'd"
By Matt Viser and Noah Bierman, Boston Globe Staff, June 19, 2009
House and Senate leaders unveiled last night a state budget for the next fiscal year that would
slash services in nearly every area of Massachusetts government and that calls for additional sales, meals, and alcohol
taxes.
Under the $27.4 billion spending plan, expected to be voted on today, some communities could see up to
a 15 percent cut in local aid, officials said. The proposal would eliminate 50 line items and funding for 800 local projects. A dozen Registry of Motor Vehicle branches would be closed.
The dramatic spending reductions have been forecast for months as state revenue projections have plummeted.
“It was just a litany of bad choices that we had before us,’’ said Representative Charles A. Murphy, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. “There’s going to be a lot of pain, and there’s going to be a lot people who aren’t terribly happy.’’
Under the proposal,
the sales tax would increase from 5 percent to 6.25 percent, which is estimated to bring in an additional $900 million annually, roughly
a third of which would be earmarked for the transportation system.
The budget would also
boost taxes on meals by 1.25 percentage points, which is estimated to raise $108 million statewide.
Cities and towns would be allowed to raise the meals tax by an additional .75 percentage point.
In addition, the budget would eliminate a tax exemption on alcohol sold in retail stores and allow communities to raise the local hotel tax by 2 percentage points.In a move sure to draw fire from police unions, the budget proposal would also slash by about 80 percent funding for the Quinn Bill, a controversial program that awards bonuses for police officers who hold college degrees.
The budget agreement capped a frenzied day on Beacon Hill. Hours before, lawmakers defied angry union leaders and approved, by a veto-proof majority, a long-awaited transportation overhaul that would reconfigure the confusing array of agencies that operate roads, rail, and bridges in Massachusetts.
Business and watchdog groups offered measured support for the plan, but the man whose opinion now matters most, Governor Deval Patrick, stayed mum throughout the day.
“Until I can comment thoughtfully and with some study, I’m going to withhold comment,’’ Patrick told reporters yesterday.
But close observers said the transportation bill, while leaving potential funding gaps and opportunities for further waste in state government, included most of the tools the governor would need to reform the state’s transportation system, which he has vowed to do.
“You have lots of language allowing you to do lots of great things,’’ said Stephen J. Silveira, a lobbyist who led an influential commission that released a major report on the state’s transportation crisis two years ago.
Union leaders, objecting to certain provisions in the legislation, roamed the State House halls with threats of lost endorsements. But the Senate passed the overhaul, 27 to 11. The House followed shortly afterward with a 130-to-25 vote.
The activity at the State House - lawmakers were also furiously finalizing
an ethics overhaul package - set the stage for a high-stakes chess match that will unfold over the coming days.
Patrick, who has said he must see significant government reforms before considering tax increases, is weighing his moves very carefully.
“Listen, I applaud the Legislature for taking a very important step forward in transportation reform,’’ he said. “The bill, on first review, contains a lot of the efficiencies and the changes that we were looking for.’’
When approached later by a reporter on a State House elevator, Patrick said with a laugh, “What part of no comment do you not understand?’’
His reticence to comment substantively on the transportation overhaul was in stark contrast to his approach last week, when Patrick was so pleased with lawmakers’ work on
pension overhaul legislation that he sent gifts to House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo (a box of cigars) and Senate President Therese Murray (a vase of flowers).
Patrick, looking ahead to next year’s reelection campaign, appears to be increasingly weighing such decisions for their politics as well as their policy. He will face a host of delicate decisions over the next several days as lawmakers send him the budget and an ethics bill that could be filed as early as today.
Top lawmakers remained
deadlocked yesterday over the ethics package. The major sticking point was whether or not to ban all gifts to public officials.
On the budget, Patrick has vowed to veto any proposal to raise the sales tax unless the Legislature first agrees to make acceptable changes in pension, ethics, and transportation laws.
The political stakes for Patrick are high. He was elected pledging to change the insular culture of Beacon Hill and touted big plans for education, community policing, and infrastructure.
But with the state economy struggling and state revenues plunging, Patrick has been forced to consider raising taxes to keep programs afloat. And yet he is surely aware of the pitfalls: Governor Michael S. Dukakis was swept from office in 1978 after his first term in part because of antitax fervor.
Lawmakers had little time to read the transportation bill, much less study it, given that it was filed only 16 hours before debate began in the Senate. Some details, including a provision that would give the mayor of Boston authority to approve commercial development projects built over the turnpike, were slipped in with little notice.
The most tangible savings, about $30 million per year, come through changes to MBTA healthcare benefits that would force workers and retirees to contribute more for their insurance.
Labor unions blasted the transportation bill, saying the plan would “eviscerate the rights of workers to collectively bargain.’’ Any lawmaker who votes for it, the AFL-CIO warned, may not be considered a friend of labor at election time.
“It eliminates all unions at the Turnpike Authority and takes no regard for collective bargaining,’’ said Robert F. Cullinane, head of the Teamsters Local 127, which represents toll-takers. “We thought we were voting for Democrats up here.’’
Senator Stephen A. Baddour, a Methuen Democrat who leads the Transportation Committee, promised to address some of the concerns in subsequent bills. But most lawmakers said they were happy to vote for 80 percent or 90 percent of what they believed was a good plan.
-
Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.
-
----------
A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL
"Still waiting on ethics"
June 23, 2009
GOVERNOR PATRICK is threatening to veto a 25 percent increase in the state sales tax unless the Legislature passes an ethics bill. His threat irks lawmakers, but they should do the right thing anyway.
The public wants an end to business as usual. It has been a tumultuous year of scandal on Beacon Hill. Salvatore F. DiMasi was indicted after he stepped down as speaker of the House of Representatives. Two state senators resigned and also face criminal charges. The Globe has turned up a pattern of pension abuse by state employees.
Lawmakers already acted on pension and transportation reform measures. Now, they need to act decisively on ethics reform. The Ethics Commission should be strengthened - not weakened, as the Senate proposes. It’s also important to close a critical loophole by making it clear that gifts given to public employees because of their official position are illegal for the giver as well as for the recipient; and impose a criminal penalty in certain circumstances.
That may seem like overkill to some. Patrick himself ran afoul of current state ethics law when he sent a box of cigars to House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and a bouquet of flowers to Senate President Therese Murray. The rules ban gifts of $50 or more to a public official in return for an official action. Instead of sending an ostentatious bouquet to one individual, the governor could have sent a more modest offering to the Senate as an institution.
But Patrick’s overzealousness with flowers doesn’t change the need for tighter ethics rules on Beacon Hill. It’s time to strengthen what’s already on the books and make sure it applies to everyone.
----------
-
-
Massachusetts Governor Deval L. Patrick
-
"Patrick to OK sales tax hike"
By Matt Murphy, Berkshire Eagle Boston Bureau, Saturday, June 27, 2009
BOSTON -- First came the elimination of the most blatant abuses of the public pension system.
Then Friday Gov. Deval L. Patrick traveled to Springfield, where he signed a massive overhaul of the state's transportation bureaucracy that will eliminate the Turnpike Authority and generate an estimated $6 billion in savings over the next 20 years.
Next up? Signing a House- and Senate-approved overhaul and toughening of the state's ethics laws.
Signaling his support for the trifecta of major reform efforts on Beacon Hill this year, Patrick told The Eagle yesterday that he plans to sign off on the basic blueprint of the state budget by Monday capping a flurry of activity over the past several months that has left the governor claiming victory in his efforts to change business as usual in state government.
His support will extend "reluctantly" to a 25 percent sales tax increase that will raise the tax to 6.25 percent. It currently is at 5 percent.
"I think we've taken a giant step in delivering government that not only the public expects, but what it deserves. Taken together, they are a sweeping set of changes and a real down payment on credibility," Patrick told The Eagle in an exclusive, 15 minute phone interview.
The timely completion of ethics, pension and transportation reform by the House and Senate in the span of less than six months can be seen as a significant accomplishment for all involved given the relatively short stint between start and finish. It has also served to essentially call Patrick's bluff.
Since taking office, Patrick has, at times, chided the Legislative for its slow pace of doing business.
He has delivered speeches on the "cost of inaction," and he has prodded and provoked lawmakers with a veto threat of the sales tax increase to ensure action on ethics, pension and transportation reform.
"This was about getting people's attention and being clear about what I wanted. We set an ambitious agenda and the Legislature has responded," the governor said.
Patrick now plans make good on his promise to OK a 25 percent sales tax increase enacted by the Legislature in what will become the biggest broad-based tax hike in Massachusetts since Michael Dukakis served as governor.
"That's the bargain. I will keep my end of the bargain. They seem to be keeping theirs," Patrick said, referring to the Legislature. The governor said he was "appreciative that the Legislature responded to my call to these reforms and took courageous votes."
Though Patrick called himself a "reluctant" supporter of a the politically unpopular sales tax hike, he said he believes the public will understand that not raising taxes would have been devastating at the state and local level.
"The public, at the same time, is clamoring for services and are very, very concerned. We're still not done cutting," Patrick explained, adding that the sales tax will help avoid increased highway tolls and fare increases on the T and commuter rails.
Patrick himself called for a 19-cent gas tax increase to pay for transportation needs in what he considered a more targeted and appropriate approach.
Friday, he left the door open to future consideration of a gas tax hike in order to create a guaranteed revenue stream for transportation infrastructure.
"The Legislature has still not dealt with that, and until they do we have not solved all of the transportation challenges," Patrick said.
In addition to increased efficiency in the transportation system, Patrick said the days of the Turnpike Authority being a "repository for patronage" jobs are gone.
"That's over now," he said confidently. The plan also creates so-called "toll equity" for Western Massachusetts drivers ensuring that tolls paid on the Massachusetts Turnpike will not be funneled back to Boston to pay for costs associated with the Big Dig.
A mere six months into the new Legislative session, Patrick is rolling toward the start of his re-election campaign with a series of wins that will surely become a focal point of his message as he seeks a second term.
The progress, however, has not come without its cost, and Patrick insists his reform agenda is not complete. Talking up plans to return his focus to education, CORI and criminal sentencing reforms, Patrick will need allies in the Legislature.
Legislators bristled in April when Patrick first issued his veto threat of the sales tax increase, and relations between himself and House and Senate leaders grew decidedly frosty.
Yesterday state Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, D-Lowell, said he questioned how much credit the governor should take for enacting the three major reforms.
"Quite frankly I never looked at it as a bargain. We were on track at the beginning of the session to take up transportation and pension reform. Those were Legislative initiatives and a credit to the leadership of the Senate president and Speaker. The governor did lead on ethics reform and I will certainly give him credit for that," said Panagiotakos, who played key roles in crafting the state budget and pension legislation.
Asked if Patrick's prodding or veto threat contributed to the timely passage of the three bills, Panagiotakos said, "No, not at all." Still, the Senator indicated that despite a "cooling" of the relationship, lawmakers in both branches have always been willing to work with the governor to accomplish shared goals.
Patrick agreed, calling disagreements a natural part of the process and predicting there will be times in the future when both branches don't see eye to eye.
"I don't know that's its changed so much," Patrick said of his relationship with the Legislature. "We have 200 members of the House and Senate and governor with his own mind. My phone line has stayed open, my door has stayed open, our staffs have worked together."
-
www.topix.net/forum/source/berkshire-eagle/T4P2AJ9ER3NJVUAAT
-
----------
"Tax drop feeding state woes"
The Berkshire Eagle, By Tony Dobrowolski, 6/27/2009, Sunday, June 28, 2009
PITTSFIELD -- Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said he believes state unemployment will probably top out in the first or second quarter next year, and that the national economy will probably hit bottom in the third or fourth quarter of 2009.
"Massachusetts will trail, as it regularly does following a recession, and unemployment always trails a recession," Widmer told a Chamber of Commerce breakfast Wednesday.
He said the state's fiscal woes are due in large part to a reliance on the capital-gains tax, revenue collected mostly through the sale of stocks, bonds, and property, that was used to plug funding shortfalls.
The state collected $2.1 billion in capital gains in 2008, he said, but the global economic recession caused that figure to drop to $530 million this year.
"The No. 1 problem we are facing is the global economic meltdown and no one's immune," Widmer said.
Paying a heavy price
"But the particular problem in Massachusetts is that we relied heavily in revenue and on our tax base in capital gains. That was fine when the stock market was going up for several years. But obviously when it crashed as it has done that means we pay a very heavy price."
The precipitous drop in the capital gains tax means the state is now supporting an ongoing increase with a vanishing revenue source, he said.
"The debate I think that will take place longer term is what level of public services do we want in the state against what level of revenues and taxes are we going to raise to support them," he said.
The sales tax increase from 5 percent to 6.25 percent, to go into effect soon, "will be painful for some, but is "relatively modest" he said, compared to increases in previous fiscal crises be-cause the state's tax base is so narrow.
"Of the 45 states with a broad-based sales tax we're 45th at the bottom in terms of the burden," he said. "So given the reality of the fiscal crisis, I think it's a relatively modest tax increase."
-
www.topix.net/forum/source/berkshire-eagle/T5T2P9BV2UGCK8RHN
-
----------
"Patrick signs state budget"
By Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff, June 29, 2009
Governor Deval Patrick today signed a budget for next year that cuts aid to cities and towns, pares back programs throughout state government, and imposes $1 billion in additional taxes on Massachusetts residents, shoppers, and visitors.
In signing the $27 billion budget, which is $400 million less than the proposal approved this month by House and Senate lawmakers, Patrick issued vetoes that cut funding in a number of areas. The budget takes effect Wednesday, the first day of the next fiscal year.
“The budget offers an honest assessment of the tough economic circumstances we face without losing sight of the better days we know lie ahead of us,” Patrick said in a statement. “By making thoughtful, careful decisions, we have protected services for the most vulnerable and made investments for the long-term in education and healthcare so that we’re ready when the upswing comes.”
Patrick's plan restores health care coverage for 30,000 legal immigrants and provides a record-high $4 billion in education funding for cities and towns, thanks in part to $167 million in federal stimulus money. It also includes more than $1 billion in new taxes, a portion of which will prevent a planned toll increase on the Massachusetts Turnpike.
His budget calls for nearly $150 million in line-item vetoes, eliminating or slashing programs that the Legislature approved. In addition, it eliminates $217 million in funding for county sheriffs, according to an administration official briefed on the budget. That funding will likely be restored through a bill that consolidates sheriffs departments throughout the state.
The Legislature now must decide whether to override the governor’s vetoes or let them stand.
The budget includes more than $1 billion in tax increases, which include new taxes on hotels, alcohol, meals, and satellite dishes. The new sales tax rate, which will increase from 5 percent to 6.25 percent, will go into effect Aug. 1.
Patrick had said he would agree to the lawmakers' plan only after they agreed to overhaul the state's ethics, pension, and transportation laws significantly. Over the past two weeks, House and Senate lawmakers approved plans on each of those items, all but forcing the governor to sign on to their tax proposal.
----------
"You’re Deval Patrick, and you just don’t get it"
-
By Howie Carr
-
Friday, July 3, 2009, www.bostonherald.com - Columnists
-
Gov. Deval Patrick signs the 2010 budget including the 25 percent sales tax hike to 6.25 percent. Since that time, he has not ruled out a subsequent hike in the gas tax. (Photo by Angela Rowlings)
-
Your name is Deval Patrick, and you are a taxaholic.
On Monday, a reporter asked you a question about raising the gasoline tax, and you blurted out, maybe we’ll have to.
On Tuesday, you signed into law both a 25 percent increase in the sales tax and a new 6.25 percent sales tax on alcohol, which already has an excise tax on it.
On Wednesday, you floated a trial balloon about increasing the state income tax, saying that some high-income taxpayers would be willing to contribute more.
You’re Deval Patrick, and you’re way too busy to check out the latest DOR statistics on how many of those wonderful affluent moonbats were willing this year to pay income tax at the voluntary higher 5.85 percent rate - 1,500 out of 3.1 million filers, which is one-twentieth of 1 percent.
You’re a taxaholic, and if Step 5 of the program is admitting the exact nature of our wrongs, then is it too late for you to apologize to all the homeowners in Massachusetts who’ve been waiting since 2006 for the property tax relief you promised them?
You’re Deval Patrick, and has anyone seen Doug Rubin? Because you’d like to ask him why in the latest polls you have fallen behind both Tim Cahill and Christy Mihos.
Tim Cahill, who lost $15 billion in pension funds in the economic meltdown, and Christy Mihos, who said in 2006 that he’d vote for you if he weren’t running - where the hell did Doug Rubin leave the opposition research book?
You’re Deval Patrick, and you devoted most of Wednesday to Operation: Change the Subject, doing one-on-one interviews in which you fell off the wagon again, rhapsodizing about jacking up the income tax.
You did all those interviews and still nobody is taking seriously your ethics reform bill that authorizes the state attorney general to begin impaneling statewide grand juries - in 2015.
You still don’t get that the voters are a lot angrier about the Marian Walsh scandal (which is 100 percent your fault) than about the Dianne Wilkerson scandal (which isn’t).
After all this time, you don’t understand that voters are more amused than anything else about Dianne stuffing cash in her bra. She was only grabbing a grand for a weekend at Foxwoods, while Marian was setting herself up for life with a $135,000-a-year pension - and she couldn’t have done it without you and Doug Rubin, and where the hell is he anyway?
----------
The Boston Globe, Op-Ed, JOAN VENNOCHI
"Governor, it’s not a pretty picture"
By Joan Vennochi, July 30, 2009
GOVERNOR DEVAL PATRICK is in deep political trouble if Massachusetts voters seriously trust their lawmakers more than their governor.
According to a recent Boston Globe poll, 40 percent of those surveyed said they trusted the Legislature when it comes to handling the state’s economic problems. Only 23 percent said they trusted Patrick.
Those 545 randomly selected adults who took part in the poll may technically reside in Massachusetts. But, whatever their zip code, they must live on another political planet.
Didn’t they hear about those high-profile cases of alleged corruption and misbehavior involving state legislators, including Salvatore F. DiMasi, the now ex-speaker of the House? They must not know that 135 of 160 House lawmakers voted to reelect DiMasi as their leader, despite serious ethical controversies. They must have missed the photographs of ex-state senator Dianne Wilkerson allegedly stuffing cash in her bra, along with the exploits of now ex-state senator James Marzilli, who allegedly made inappropriate sexual comments to assorted women in Lowell.
Or, maybe these Globe poll-takers knew about these less-than-sterling legislative role models and wrote them off as a few bad Beacon Hill apples. If that is their rationale, they simply don’t understand what the rest of their elected representatives have been up to.
For starters, they have been sticking it to Patrick, a fellow Democrat.
Proving that a woman can play the Bay State’s favorite game of petty, ego-driven politics as well as any man, Senate President Therese Murray proudly labeled Patrick “irrelevant.’’ Reacting to the gubernatorial candidacy of Republican Charlie Baker, Murray also released a statement that said, “I have known Charlie Baker for many years. I am familiar with his work and have a great deal of respect for him.’’
When Patrick sought to raise revenue by increasing the gas tax, House Speaker Robert DeLeo immediately sought to thwart him. He put his clout behind an increase in the sales tax. Of course, the House, and then the Senate, followed DeLeo’s lead.
Both branches challenged different aspects of Patrick’s ethics, transportation, and pension reform proposals. They ultimately reached a compromise after the governor threatened to veto the sales tax increase - and after DiMasi was indicted and the people’s representatives felt the need to deflect attention from their role as enablers.
Massachusetts is struggling to offset steep revenue drops caused by the national recession. Tough budget choices must be made. Instead of facing the crisis with a spirit of teamwork, too often lawmakers let petty political considerations drive the debate. Their willingness to override Patrick’s veto of $4 million to fund two zoos is a prime example. The zoo officials threatened to euthanize animals if their funding wasn’t restored. Lawmakers appear ready to cave in, even after the zoo officials backed off their threat to kill animals. People want to save the zoos, even as they complain about new taxes. Lawmakers want to keep their constituents happy and are pleased to do it at Patrick’s expense.
According to that same Globe poll, 52 percent of those surveyed have an unfavorable opinion of the incumbent governor. Patrick can’t blame this dismal rating on the Legislature. It stems from a series of well-chronicled political mistakes and an inability to showcase any accomplishments that connect with voters. It’s up to him to persuade those voters that the changes he championed to laws governing ethics, pensions, and transportation policy will truly improve the entrenched political culture.
Patrick’s core constituency will stick with him, but even some true Patrick believers have lost faith. The reality is that this governor, elected with such pride and promise, needs a three-man race to survive.
Any poll is the usual snapshot. The picture adjusts when Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, who left the Democratic Party to plan a potential run as an independent, makes a formal announcement. The picture changes if Baker, who is untested as a statewide political candidate, looks better on paper than he does on the campaign trail. If the economy improves, the picture brightens for Patrick.
But, if people trust the Legislature more than the governor, the picture Patrick is looking at right now is not pretty.
In Massachusetts, that’s as ugly as it gets.
-
Joan Vennochi can be reached at vennochi@globe.com.
-
----------
"Bottoms up, taxes up: Mass. raises fee on alcohol"
By Associated Press, Saturday, August 1, 2009, www.bostonherald.com - Local Politics
BOSTON — Add 6.25 percent to the cost of that cold one.
A new alcohol tax goes into effect Saturday on all beer, wine and alcohol purchases in the state, lifting a previous tax exemption on booze.
Gov. Deval Patrick has said lifting the exemption was needed to help balance the budget. The alcohol tax could raise another $80 million in tax revenues in the new fiscal year.
Store owners say the new tax will hurt sales.
The new alcohol tax also reflects an increase in the state sales tax, which is up from 5 percent.
A ballot initiative that would add alcohol back to the state sales tax exemption list may be considered next year.
----------
"State budget is millions in the red"
By Matt Murphy, Berkshire Eagle Boston Bureau, Thursday, August 6, 2009
BOSTON -- Just a month into the new fiscal year, state officials are already staring at a balance sheet that's running in the red.
Tax collections for July came in between $24 million below estimates, according to the Department of Revenue.
The loss represents a modest decrease, but one that continues the trend of revenue collections coming in below projections, including a surprising $255 million shortfall in the month of June to close out fiscal 2009.
"July is not a big month [for tax collections], but what it does is support the case that the revenue estimate for fiscal 2010 is on the high side," said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "It raises the concern that we may fall short $300 million to $500 million for the year."
After the collapse of the state and national economy last fall, state finance officials spent much of the year chasing the bottom-line as it revised its revenues estimates down four times and cut the budget accordingly to make up for the losses.
Widmer said he does not expect the same to happen this year because the economy is expected to rebound and should not come close to the $3.2 billion in lost revenue seen last year.
Still, Sen. Steve Panagiotakos, D-Lowell, said he will be watching the numbers closely.
"Any deviation downward is something we have to take very seriously because we don't have the surplus in reserve anymore to make up the difference," said Panagiotakos, chairman of Senate Ways and Means.
The state's "rainy day" account has been drained to less than $600,000 to balance last year's budget without making devastating cuts to local aid, schools and other public health and human service programs.
July and August are two of the smaller months for tax collections, but withholdings, corporate and sales tax collections are all reported to be off target.
Unlike big corporate tax collection months that can often reflect the business climate of the year before, these two months are often seen as an indicator of current economic activity.
"We haven't found the bottom yet," Panagiotakos said. "If August continues to be lower than projections, I would think the governor would have to step in and make emergency 9c cuts."
-
www.topix.net/forum/source/berkshire-eagle/TG1ME29N6JLNHVGAF
-
----------
"Top budget chief resigns from Patrick administration"
By Matt Viser and Frank Phillips, Boston Globe Staff, September 25, 2009
Governor Deval Patrick’s top budget chief, who guided his administration through the last three years of fiscal crisis, is leaving for a top post at Harvard University, an administration official said this morning.
Secretary of Administration and Finance Leslie A. Kirwan is submitting her resignation to become dean of administration and finance for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University.
Patrick made the announcement at his weekly Cabinet meeting this morning, according to an administration source. The governor also announced that she was be replaced by Jay Gonzalez, who has been Kirwan’s top deputy and is highly regarded in the governor’s inner circle.
This is the third major departure in the last two months for the Patrick administration. His chief of staff, Doug Rubin, left to focus on campaign issues. Secretary of Transportation James Aloisi announced his resignation earlier this month.
Kirwan has been a candidate for past jobs at Harvard, and her departure has been expected. The administration official said Gonzalez’s elevation would be a “seamless transition.”
Kirwan has been in the job since Patrick became governor. Previously she was the budget chief for the Massachusetts Port Authority, where in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, she helped Logan International Airport regain its financial footing.
Her 2 1/2-year tenure has been marked by deep budget cuts and declining state revenues. Her departure also puts her out of the politically difficult position. She had been a top deputy to Charles D. Baker, a former administration and finance secretary and a Republican who is now challenging Patrick in next year’s election. Kirwan has remained close to Baker but is also loyal to Patrick.
Kirwan, the state's first female administration and finance secretary, has a quiet confidence and a dry wit. She keeps a whip in the corner of her office, she jokes, to keep people in line during budget seasons. A staff member gave her a sign last year that says, "Don't make me break out my flying monkeys" -- a reference to the Wicked Witch of the West.
----------
"State may see $200m shortfall: Tax revenue drop could force more budget slashing"
By Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff, September 29, 2009
State tax revenues are on pace to fall as much as $200 million below projections this month, signaling a disappointing year in tax collections that could trigger new rounds of emergency budget cuts, preliminary figures show.
The projected shortfall, based on figures from the state treasurer’s office, may require Governor Deval Patrick to slice hundreds of millions more from this year’s budget, which he signed only three months ago. It would be the fourth time in a year that Patrick has been forced to make midyear cuts.
The lagging revenues, despite increased taxes this year and signs of life in the state economy, could hurt Patrick politically as he heads into a re-election campaign next year. His opponents, running on themes of fiscal responsibility, argue that they would be better than Patrick at guiding the state out of its economic doldrums.
“We’re obviously watching the revenues very, very closely, and I don’t want to say anything about where we are until we get the final figures,’’ Patrick told reporters yesterday before heading into a meeting with House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray. “We have a whole host of different scenarios, as you can imagine, that we have thought about and reflected on because we want to be prepared.’’
Asked whether there would be further cuts to local aid, which is the lifeline for many cities and towns, Patrick said, “I think it’s too soon to say.’’
With only two days remaining in September, the state has collected $316 million less than anticipated, according to calculations by the state treasurer based on the actual taxes deposited daily by the Department of Revenue. State revenue officials estimate that $92 million will be collected today and tomorrow, which would leave a shortfall of $224 million.
Several variables remain, and state treasury officials estimate that revenues will finally be $100 million to $200 million below expectations.
The figures must be finalized early next month. The governor, working with legislative leaders, has until Oct. 15 to revise the revenue estimates for the rest of the year. A lower revenue estimate would probably trigger cuts to the budget, to keep it balanced.
Administration officials declined to comment on the estimates, but a top State House official familiar with budget deliberations predicted that tax collections would be off by at least $150 million.
“It’s looking rather bleak,’’ state Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, who is planning to run as an independent against Patrick in next year’s election, said in an interview. “This should sound the alarm. I certainly would be concerned in terms of spending going forward. I don’t know whether the administration has the time to wait to cut if these numbers are indicative of what’s to come.’’
Over the first two months of the fiscal year, July and August, tax collections were more than $30 million above expectations. But September, when school is back in session and spending typically increases, is often the early bellwether of how the fiscal year is shaping up.
“September is always the month where you get your most revenue,’’ Murray said yesterday after meeting with DeLeo and Patrick. “So if we’re down significantly in September, that doesn’t probably bode well for the rest of the fiscal year.’’
The state’s budget problems are compounded by the fact that Patrick and top lawmakers have relied in large part on one-time revenues to plug the previous budget gaps, using federal stimulus money that will dry up next year and a state reserve fund that is dwindling. Additionally, economists have warned that the state is in a multiyear cycle that will continue to strain budgets until at least 2014.
“Oh, Lordy,’’ said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, when told of the estimates. “Numbers like this for September suggest [the state’s revenue estimates] could be $500 million or more too high for the year.’’
Revenue dropped despite a controversial decision by Patrick and the Legislature to increase taxes by more than $1 billion, including boosting the state sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent. Retailers warned that the state would not raise nearly as much as estimated, predicting that customers would go to New Hampshire or the Internet to avoid additional taxes.
This is the first month of tax collections that will reflect the new sales tax increase, but revenue figures have not been finalized and released in detail, so it is unclear how much of a dropoff that accounts for.
News of September tax collections was released as the Patrick administration’s top budget chief is leaving for a new position at Harvard University. Patrick announced last week that Leslie A. Kirwan, secretary of administration and finance, was submitting her resignation after guiding his administration for the past 2 1/2 years.
The projected revenue drop indicates that the effects of the national recession are still being felt deeply in Massachusetts. Last fiscal year, which ended June 30, revenues dropped billions below initial expectations. Patrick administration officials say they have eliminated about 1,400 positions.
“At the state level and the public sector, we still have enormous challenges ahead of us,’’ Patrick said yesterday afternoon, pointing to signs of an uptick in the economy. “But we are confident that we’re on the right course, that we’re pointed in the right direction, that better times are ahead.’’
-
Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.
-
----------
"Patrick says still no union concession deal"
(via) The Berkshire Eagle, 10/28/2009
BOSTON (AP) -- Gov. Deval Patrick said Wednesday state employee labor unions still have not agreed to job-saving concessions as he prepares to announce how he will cut $600 million from the budget.
Patrick said some layoffs will be unavoidable because he plans to eliminate several programs. But he has warned he will have to cut up to 2,000 jobs if employees don’t agree to furlough days or other cost-saving measures.
The state had already laid off 726 employees as of mid-October, after four rounds of budget cuts in the fiscal year that ended June 30.
"We have not gotten what we need," Patrick told reporters after addressing a disability conference at a downtown hotel. "I’m hopeful, but by no means do I want to give the impression that we have a deal."
He plans to outline his cuts by the close of business Thursday. They are necessitated by falling tax collections linked to the national recession.
A spokesman for the State Police Association of Massachusetts, one of the labor unions negotiating with the Patrick administration, was reviewing the governor’s comments before responding.
Patrick also said that while Margaret Marshall, the state’s top jurist as chief of the Supreme Judicial Court, has warned against judicial cuts, her concern is not unique.
"I have tremendous respect for the legal system and the judiciary in particular and for the chief justice, who’s been a friend for 20 years," the governor said. "I will say that it’s not very unlike what I hear from people who are advocating for all types of spending in the state budget."
Patrick has been besieged by users of the state’s human service system, who are begging him not to make any more cuts in their portion of the budget. That is difficult, however, because it consumes about half of the state’s $28 billion in annual spending.
Members of the disabled community tried to underscore their point by camping out in the governor’s office lobby this month so he could not enter or leave without seeing them.
On Wednesday, as he opened a conference aimed at making workplaces more accessible to the disabled, Patrick pleaded for understanding.
"I’m going to tell you simply that I see you, I hear you, I understand the need -- not just as a matter of policy, but as a matter of humanity -- and I am going to do the very best I can," the governor said.
-
www.topix.net/forum/source/berkshire-eagle/T1B3TA37S0R19Q2CI
-
----------
"Patrick to end nearly 1,000 jobs: Cuts would hit all of government; reduction plan spares local aid"
By Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff, October 30, 2009
WORCESTER - Governor Deval Patrick intends to close a projected $600 million budget gap by eliminating nearly 1,000 state jobs, shaving millions from human service programs, reducing help for local school building projects, and possibly closing the State House library, the governor and his aides said yesterday.
Patrick said he would move to make $352 million in cuts across state government, including $277 million from the executive branch. He will also seek authority from lawmakers to make $75 million in additional reductions in other branches of government, including the Legislature, the judiciary, and county sheriffs.
But Patrick’s budget cuts - which were met with a mixture of frustration, resignation, and even relief that they were not worse - were notable for what they did not touch: local aid, the money cities and towns rely on to run their schools, police, fire departments, and much more. Patrick made a point of saying he would fully protect that funding.
“We will not cut our record investment in our students and our schools. We will not shortchange our children’s future,’’ he said, in an address to the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce. “Local communities are the front line of both our economic and our social life, and they are struggling as it is.’’
The rest of the $600 million gap Patrick said he would close through $248 million in additional measures, including $62 million from the federal stimulus bill, which will offset cuts to higher education. In addition, the state plans to send $27 million less to the School Building Authority, which helps communities fund school building construction.
Patrick also said he would ask the Legislature to eliminate two controversial paid holidays for certain state workers, Evacuation Day and Bunker Hill Day, although that change would carry more symbolic weight than financial implications.
It is the fourth time in the past year that Patrick has been forced to make emergency cuts because tax revenues came in lower than expected. Tax receipts for the first quarter of this fiscal year missed projections by $212 million.
State revenues have yet to stabilize, and fiscal watchdogs warn that more cuts are probable, perhaps even later this fiscal year.
“There may have to be another round of cuts this year, and there certainly will be major cuts in the fiscal 2011 budget,’’ said Michael J. Widmer, executive director of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
One issue with Patrick’s approach to budget-balancing, Widmer said, is it relies in part on one-time revenue sources, including federal stimulus funds and money from the state’s reserve account.
That means that next year, if that money is not available again, the state will be forced to cut further.
“It just delays the day of reckoning,’’ Widmer said.
Following Patrick’s directive yesterday, various departments will immediately begin crafting plans and determining how to reduce the number of state jobs by nearly 1,000 positions, which will come through a mixture of layoffs, retirements, and eliminating vacant positions.
Jay Gonzalez, Patrick’s budget chief, said another 1,000 state jobs are in jeopardy if state employee unions do not agree to $35 million in concessions. He said the state hopes to get an agreement by Dec. 1.
Those savings could be achieved in part through unpaid furlough days; state managers, under Patrick’s cuts, will take nine unpaid furlough days.
Other money-saving measures include a $5 million cut to the Quinn Bill, an education incentive program that has boosted the salaries of police officers.
The program has already seen a huge cut in this year’s budget.
Although primary sources of local aid were spared, Patrick did eliminate tens of millions of dollars that directly affect cities and towns, including $18 million to help regional school districts run school buses and $5.2 million in charter school reimbursements.
“The overall sense is that people were expecting a cut, and a cut came,’’ said Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. “But it was smaller in magnitude than they had feared.’’
Patrick has broad discretion to make emergency cuts to balance the budget. But part of his plan remains up in the air, because he needs the Legislature to both grant him expanded budget-cutting powers and not override any of his proposals.
A leading House lawmaker, state Representative Charles A. Murphy, chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, suggested that the Legislature might not agree with Patrick’s approach in every area.
“The governor has given us some suggestions,’’ said Murphy, a Burlington Democrat. “There are many ways to skin this cat, so to speak. We may look at other ways to get this done. We recognize the governor has a difficult job in this, but that’s not necessarily the end-all.’’
Beyond the State House, Patrick’s cuts received a mixed reaction.
Advocates for the disabled applauded smaller cuts than they feared to human services, and they even came to Worcester to show their support. Cuts to human services ended up being $82 million, he said, and advocates had expected as much as $300 million.
“We’re psyched,’’ said Leo Sarkissian, executive director of The Arc, which advocates for 180,000 individuals and families with intellectual and developmental disabilities. “No one likes a cut, but this is good. Families and advocates are thrilled.’’
But Deborah Banda, the state director of AARP Massachusetts, criticized a cut in a prescription drug program for seniors.
“We question both the wisdom and the compassion of the $5.6 million cut to Prescription Advantage, the state’s pharmacy assistance program for seniors,’’ she said, calling the program “a lifeline for thousands of seniors who are struggling to afford their medications.’’
Shannon Grants, which help fund youth violence prevention programs, also saw a significant cut, on top of other cuts over the past few months. The program was funded at $13 million last year and was cut in half for this year. Patrick sliced another $2 million yesterday, bringing the program’s funding to $4.5 million.
Homelessness advocates said they felt their programs were singled out. Joe Finn, president and executive director of the Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance, sent an e-mail to supporters calling the 7.4 percent cut to homeless assistance “both unconscionable and bad policy.’’
“This is going to force people onto the street,’’ said Lyndia Downie, president and executive director of the Pine Street Inn.
She said her shelter, which has a $34 million budget, will now lose $1.7 million in state funding. The shelter is still working on how to deal with the cut, she said, pointing out that it comes as the weather is getting colder and as the demand for shelter will increase.
-
Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.
-
----------
-
-
Maria Bonilla, 27, with daughter, Alyssa, 7. (Matthew J. Lee/ Globe Staff)
-
"Budget cuts will imperil state’s poor"
By David Abel, Boston Globe Staff, November 17, 2009
Maria Bonilla - who has trouble walking because of a congenital heart defect - feeds, houses, and clothes her two young children with $942 of state and federal cash assistance every month, though it barely covers her rent, utilities, and everything else her family needs to survive, from diapers to subway fare. But in a few months the 27-year-old victim of domestic violence expects to be homeless.
The Bonilla family is one of thousands of low-income families who will suffer from steep budget cuts.
The state estimates that the children of 9,100 families with parents so severely disabled that they qualify for federal Supplemental Security Income benefits will lose their state cash assistance as a result of the $600 million in budget cuts that Governor Deval Patrick announced late last month. The $15.8 million reduction of the Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, on top of $8 million in cuts made earlier this fiscal year, means families who receive the assistance will lose an average of more than $400 a month.
“I don’t want to be out on the streets,’’ said Bonilla, of Boston, whose family will lose $238 in state assistance Jan. 1, and she cannot work because of her heart. “That little amount of money helps a lot. If they take it away, my kids will suffer. I’m scared.’’
State officials said that they regret having to make the cuts but that
the state budget is in such bad shape that they have no choice. While they acknowledge the pain, they said the cuts avoid eliminating programs and preserve the state’s workforce of case managers.
“In the face of unprecedented economic challenges, the governor has had to make some very difficult budget decisions,’’ said Jennifer Kritz, a spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Health and Human Services. “We recognize that there is a person behind every dollar; however, the governor has needed to make adjustments in order to close a significant budget gap. . . .. We are working with our community partners and other stakeholders to minimize the impact.’’
Advocates for low-income families contend that the cuts are unwise because federal stimulus dollars could reimburse the state up to 80 percent of the cost of paying the benefits, or $19 million of the $24 million eliminated. But Kritz said state officials are “confident that we will be able to identify other qualifying state funds’’ so Massachusetts does not lose federal money.
The advocates say the cuts mean that more families are likely to lose their homes, exacerbating the strain on
the budget. In recent months the state has seen record numbers of homeless families, with 2,000 families packing state shelters and another 1,035 families living in state-subsidized motel rooms as of this week. It costs the state on average $36,000 a year to shelter a family.
“Just at the time the administration has vowed to end homelessness, hundreds of additional families will become homeless,’’ said Ruth Bourquin, a lawyer at the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. “The state’s shelter system is already overwhelmed by demand. The last thing we need is to jeopardize the tenancies of disabled parents and their children, families who often have extra expenses due to disabilities and need to be residing close to their medical providers.’’
In addition to the cuts, which do not affect the other 41,000 families who receive transitional aid, the state will require parents who are capable of working and whose youngest child is between ages 6 and 9 will have to work 30 hours a week to get benefits, six more than required now. The advocates say the additional work requirement could lead to more families losing benefits.
“This cut is a prime example of the truly vicious cycle that we are in,’’ said Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. “Pulling basic supports from children whose parents are so severely disabled will surely increase the number of children who end up in the care and custody of the Commonwealth. . . . The results, especially for the children, cannot help but be tragic.’’
The advocates say about 40 percent of the affected families have no housing subsidy and are unlikely to be able to afford rent. The rest of them will have to scrimp to pay for basic necessities, such as clothing, transportation, and medical supplies.
For Nasim Aziz-Rivera of Worcester, who has not been able to work since injuring his back in 2003 working for the Homeland Security Department, the cuts mean a loss of $199 a month for his family, or more than 20 percent of their cash assistance.
As a result, Aziz-Rivera, his wife, and their 6-year-old daughter are worried about how they will pay for basics, such as food. The 46-year-old said his wife, who earns less than $11 an hour working about 12 hours a week in school cafeterias, will seek more hours.
“It’s very hard,’’ he said. “It’s very hard to see your daughter, all three of us, in a situation that I don’t think any human being should be in.’’
-
David Abel can be reached at dabel@globe.com.
-
www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/17/budget_cuts_will_imperil_states_poor/?comments=all
-
----------
"Massachusetts finance chief criticizes ‘risky’ budget move"
By GLEN JOHNSON, AP Political Writer, November 20, 2009
BOSTON (AP) — The top budget official in Massachusetts says the Legislature has taken a “risky” approach by adjourning for the remainder of the year without closing a projected $125 million state budget deficit.
Administration and Finance Secretary Jay Gonzalez told the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce on Friday that Wall Street credit agencies recently reaffirmed the state’s bond rating in part because of its proactive financial management.
He said “crossing our fingers, and hoping our revenues will get better and solve our problem, is not responsible budget management. It’s risky.”
In response, Gonzalez said, Gov. Deval Patrick is now preparing a plan to close the remaining deficit unilaterally, since the House and Senate rejected his request to give him expanded authority to cut legislative, judicial and constitutional officer budgets. That could trigger deep program cuts.
“I am very concerned about leaving our budget shortfall unaddressed,” Gonzalez told the business leaders. “The longer we wait to make cuts that need to be made, the deeper the impact on programs and services.”
The sharp words amounted to a follow-up jab by the administration. On Thursday, Patrick made an unscheduled appearance in the Statehouse press gallery to make many of the same points himself.
He accused the Legislature of “brinksmanship” and urged members to reconvene to pass a crime bill, education overhaul and give him more budget-balancing authority.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo offered a tart response to the governor, who is gearing up his 2010 re-election campaign.
“Governor Patrick’s comments seem to be more about political necessity than ‘moral obligation,’” DeLeo aide Seth Gitell said in a written statement. “Speaker DeLeo’s obligation is to the commonwealth’s schoolchildren — not Governor Patrick’s political calendar.”
House and Senate budget leaders said they have done what’s needed by making over $400 million in cuts. They also said they are asking constitutional officers and the judiciary to make voluntary cuts within their own budgets, arguing they know how to control them better than the governor or the House and Senate.
In a related development, Gonzalez announced that four unions representing 75 percent of the state’s 40,000-person executive branch union workforce have agreed to forgo raises and take furloughs to join management employees in staving off potential layoffs.
Negotiators for AFSCME, NAGE, SEIU Local 509 and SEIU Local 888 struck the deals this week and now are presenting them to rank and file for approval.
Gonzalez said the deals would create “tens of millions in savings” and represented the first time a governor had gotten a furlough agreement and delay in contracted wage increase since state employee collective bargaining started in 1974.
Patrick said in October that Massachusetts would have to cut about 2,000 jobs to close an estimated $600 million budget deficit. He said 1,000 of those cuts would happen regardless, due to program cuts. But he called on unions to match management concessions to avoid up to 1,000 layoffs he feared would drastically harm the state’s delivery of services.
The governor ordered managers to take up to nine furlough days, depending on their salary. Gonzalez said the unions had matched the savings either through furloughs, compensation givebacks or a combination of both.
After his speech, the secretary told reporters that if the agreements are ratified, it would save “hundreds” of jobs.
The administration continues to negotiate with unions representing State Police troopers and other government employees.
----------
.png)
