The Globe asked gubernatorial candidates Cahill, Baker and Mihos how they would close the budget gap.
Charlie Baker came up with this:
ask chains like CVS, Wal-Mart, and Walgreens to take over some of the transactions handled by the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
What now?
Dude, have you ever seen long lines at McDonald’s? You can bring the kids to the RMV and they can get a free toy. Just saying.
As it turns out that was probably the highlight of Baker’s interview. He went on to talk about consolidating Health and Human Services agencies and capping pensions at $90,000 a year.
These proposals would close our budget deficit from 2 billion all the way down to an almost non-existent 1.9 billion. Way to go Charlie.
But Baker also talks about laying off 5000 state employees, he estimates that the state could save 400 million. But Stephen Crosby, budget chief under Jane Swift says that dollar amount is a pipe dream.
cutting 5,000 workers is “a really seriously Draconian step” that would be difficult because union rules protect the more senior employees with the highest salaries
Baker again is non-specific on what jobs would be cut and to be fair Patrick also includes staffing cuts in his budget. So if we take Charlie Baker’s inflated numbers we still have a 1.5 billion dollar gap.
Is this really a solution? In the real world we need to balance our budget. But I have to say that Baker’s very weak attempt to add specifics to bring down the budget gap was actually better than Tim Cahill who just threw his hands up in the air and pretty much said he had no idea. That’s leadership!
david says
the following gems from the Globe story regarding Baker’s “plan” to manage the budget. He wants to cut 5,000 state employees, but
<
p>
<
p>He wants to consolidate health and human services agencies, but
<
p>
<
p>He declined to say? This, from the Smartest Man In State Government who was formerly not only Secretary of Administration and Finance, but also Secretary of Health and Human Services?
<
p>And I do love this one.
<
p>
<
p>Let me get this straight. We’re going to ask Wal-Mart to pay the state for the right to have long lines of frustrated people in their stores conducting transactions that don’t do their business any good? My goodness, I’m sure they’ll just leap at that opportunity.
<
p>Please.
af says
he doesn’t want to give specifics is that he doesn’t want them to be attacked or turned down before he gets a chance to use them in the heavy campaign. Besides, if we know his actual plans, we might……not vote for him.
<
p>As far as outsourcing Registry functions, I say why not? Except, CVS is already busy being the ER of choice for many, and wouldn’t have the time or space. Besides, do you want a CVS or Walmart clerk handling your Registry business in between selling diapers and filling in stocking shelves on aisle 8? Flippancy aside, having basic transactions handled at outside businesses is not a bad idea, assuming the right ones are chosen. AAA already does some things, now. I would say that banks, given the clerical nature of their business, plus widespread access and hours might be a good choice, too, except that in the current environment, the banking industry is not one of my favorites, and not one that I would insinuate into more of my life. Thoughts?
bpaskin says
I believe he just wants to make the RMV more efficient. Outsourcing the RMV might not be prudent due to the nature of the business. They hand out government issued ID cards. Not like that has stopped some employees being paid money to give out IDs to others, but that could be problem point.
kbusch says
It seems that Republican politicians have been telling us for years that there is a Department of Waste. “Shutter it,” they say, “and you can save money.”
<
p>Now your average Republican might actually believe this.
<
p>The smartest guy to work in state government, though, must simply be lying — or not be that smart.
sabutai says
I’m just sure those WMDs those ethical bankers that waste must be around here somewhere….
merbex says
CVS and Walmart and put Charlie Baker out of business?
<
p>One stop shopping – government services and health insurance and all your hygene needs met with one stop.
<
p>Is this guy for real???????
petr says
Back in the 90’s Bakers’ erstwhile boss, Bill Weld ran a similar playbook in which the Pike and the RMV played the most prominent villains. I guess Charlie’s smart enough to realize the Pike is no longer in play so he’s doubled down on the RMV…
lynne says
The RMV isn’t that bad.
<
p>I’m more worked up about how long we wait in the Dr’s waiting room…that’s WITH an appointment.
petr says
… the other part of Weld’s diabolical plan was the brilliance of launching attacks on a governmental agency that actually deserved it: to this date I still have the urge to blind myself with a rusty screwdriver whenever I think about the RMV in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Weld got a lot of mileage outta piling on the RMV because, well, the RMV (at that time) was apocalyptically bad. Now, not so much.
<
p>I think Charlie has his work cut out for him…
howland-lew-natick says
The 1/2 dozen times I’ve gone to a Registry office for something since 1996 have been professional, efficient and ever the floors cleaned. Somebody did and is doing a good job.
<
p>As for farming out some work, AAA handles some registration transactions in Rhode Island. Anyone could check with them as to how that works out. RMV is the 2nd biggest money maker for the state after DOR. I wouldn’t want to kill a goose that lays a golden egg.
christopher says
…letting the town and city clerks do at least some of the RMV functions? I believe that is what NH does.
af says
Although at what cost, or benefit to the towns? Cities and towns are already suffering from budget shortfalls, and threats of more cutbacks in state aid. They can’t have this job put off on them without, at least, breaking even. Then, if you compensate them, what does the net become by doing that? Has the state merely moved the money and responsibility elsewhere, with no net savings?
peter-porcupine says
I told him he would be better off to expand the program run by Register Kaprilian, which allows AAA offices to do some RMV functions, similar to the DRIVE programs at car dealerships. That at least has the virtue of being private sector (avoiding need for salary, benefits, pensions, etc.).
<
p>Christy agreed that program should continue, be feels that some transactions involving confidential information would be better handled at town halls. And, as he said – EVERY town has a town hall but not every town hs a AAA ofice (or RMV, for that matter).
stomv says
I’m uncomfortable with AAA both because
(a) they lobby for politics I disagree with, and
(b) the confidential nature of the ID, especially since it’s used for security non-driving purposes.
<
p>I like the idea of the Town Clerk’s office doing it “in principle” — but it does sound like yet another unfunded mandate on cities and towns.
peter-porcupine says
Cities and towns would keep the bulk of the fees, similar to excise tax. RMV would only need a data repository, and would no longer have branch offices, so the overhead charged to produce those services for RMV could revert to cities and towns. License, etc., might not cost any less, but it would be more convenient, and would support the town treasurer’s office.
<
p>RE: AAA – do you also investigate the political affiliations of the car dealerships that have DRIVE?
johnk says
MA Privacy Law. I would image that all town halls would have to comply with this anyway, so it seems that information would be protected. Not agreeing or disagreeing with the town hall idea. But at first glance I think it would be too costly and more overhead.
roarkarchitect says
Specifically the law exempts public agencies. So your information would be safer with a private company (or at least you would have some recourse).
<
p>Excerpt below
<
p>Person, a natural person, corporation, association, partnership or other legal entity, other than an agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the Commonwealth, or any of its branches, or any political subdivision thereof.
<
p>Tell me why the state exempted themselves from this ?
johnk says
completely missed that, we’re private so took it for granted that this impacts all.
<
p>This is the TJX law, so that’s possibly why they took a hard line towards private.
<
p>I want to check as to the background though. Thanks.
peter-porcupine says
kbusch says
This space below the headline is unnecessary in conversations with PP.
christopher says
Public obligations should be addressed and enforced by public agencies. I absolutely do not want this to be another excuse to invoke some people’s privatization fetish.
johnny-reason says
Another “inside the box” thinker. Is raising taxes an option for you Christopher?
christopher says
…until such time as we cultivate money-growing trees. They are after all “the price we pay for a civilized society”. For the record, handing out 3s just for disagreeing is a big pet peeve of mine.
johnny-reason says
Unless of course you do not want to be reelected. So you are technically correct, but realistically 100% wrong.
petr says
blah blah bluh tax cuts blah blooh blah no taxes blaaah blaoh blah tax bluh cuts blah bla blaah blah tax cuts blah blaha blah no taxes bluh blah blah tax blah blah cuts blah tax cuts blah
progressiveman says
Charlie Baker comes from the health care industry. So he only has a passing familiarity with the idea of a free market. There are only two ways CVS or Walgreen would want that contract; one would be if they could charge higher rates than what which we already pay or two (my guess his assumption) they have so much slack in their system (extra employees) they can just use that to provide the service and the existing fees will flow like manna to their bottom line. Laugh riot.
progressiveman says
…how does he account for the growing number of online based transactions?
kbusch says
Outsourcing is at best a mediocre idea. At the minimum, it means having good regulation and better enforcement. It can also lead, as it does in Florida, to a strange alliance between business and government.
<
p>That said, our civil service does not give the impression of being either well-organized or well-managed. Figuring how to improve that seems very difficult but it’s a problem progressives should solve.
akloftus says
Why didn’t Charlie Baker “streamline” all of these agencies in the 1990s when he was an undersecretary of health and human services to Weld and A&F Secretary to Weld and Cellucci?
<
p>Oh I forgot, he already explained this to us:
“State government’s kind of like whack-a-mole,” Baker said. “You can get the ones you can get at.”
<
p>
johnny-reason says
So what’s the alternative BMGers?
<
p>The Commonwealth as well as its Cities and Towns are in budgetary structural deficit. That is a problem that is not going away any time soo. In other words, neither the Commonwealth nor its subdivisions can afford to continue to do things the same way as we did them just a few years ago. My guess is that specifics will follow on Baker’s plan and wonder what choice we have other than to listen and ponder the viability of such a plan. Many that post here will certainly advocate for a tax increase, but it is not happening this year given the November elections. What we are left with is the draconian plan that CB laid out. Cutting state jobs is the only solution. As a matter of fact, isn’t that what cities and towns have been doing? So have fun and giggle away, but CB’s proposal will be Deval’s reality if he succeeds in keeping his job.
<
p>As for the RMV idea, it’s an idea. Changing the way we deliver services or questioning the need for specific services will be part of campaign 2010.
<
p>Enjoy the laugh today, but remember the campaign really hasn’t started and when it does all of the serious candidates for Governor will be forced to come up with some damn creative ideas. Too bad the creativity has to wait for an election cycle.
david says
Too bad it hasn’t arrived yet. That’s what I’m saying. None of it was evident from the proposals of any of Deval’s opponents.
johnny-reason says
My point is let’s not ridicule ideas particularly when figuring out a different way to delver services is critical. If the idea is to hammer CB every time he presents an idea then BMG has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Patrick Campaign.
<
p>FWIW, Deval’s proposals for reinventing government are underwhelming.
david says
is to hammer bad, or poorly thought-out, ideas. Charlie Baker has put out several of them lately, so he’s the nail du jour. But we’re equal opportunity around here.
johnny-reason says
Hmmm! Not sure I agree.
johnk says
His cuts on the state level are non-existent, that only means one thing, towns and municipalities are going to get hammered. How’s those property taxes going for you, if you think they are high now wait till next year.
<
p>Just like with Romney.
johnd says
I’m tired of paying lots of state taxes to pay for towns who don’t fel like raising their own taxes! If we kept all the money from taxes raised from my town we’d be sitting pretty.
david-whelan says
I would be thrilled to pay less to the Commonwealth and pay a like amount to my community. I, too, am tired of paying taxes to the Commonwealth so they can run the funding thru filters and formulas that make little or no sense.
lynne says
Let’s let our neighbors sink and take the whole state down with them. This is dumb ranting.
david-whelan says
For years I have made enough of a pest of myself over the singular issue of chapter 70, education aid. I was a School Committee member in Swampscott for three years and watched as we laid off 54 people. The education of my two children has been compromised given the pathetic level of ch 70 aid received by my community. So who cares about Swampscott? Well, I do. Our per child aid is $100s of dollars less per child than communities with more household wealth and real estate value. The Governor and Sr. staff at DESE has admitted that a problem exists and has existed for years. So yes I would rather my money staff closes to home. I don’t want the redistribution of ed funds to be used to fund Marblehead and Wellesley schools in excess of the level of aid available to my community.
<
p>FWIW, I get the whole “commonwealth” thing and certainly want to provide a safety net for those in need, but I see such a disproportionate level of funding across cities and towns and I am frankly sick of it. So there. Beat me up for having the guts to say that I want to take care of my own because the state’s leadership has failed to fix problems that they have known exist for years.
<
p>Vote for Deval Patrick and you will get his attention for about 10 months. Then he takes a few years off and maybe he runs again. That’s what he has done these past few years and I expect nothing different this next cycle.
<
p>By the way, I voted for Scott Browwn, I will vote for Charlie Baker, and hope that a substantial # of sitting Legislators are swept out of office in November. It’s time for a change.
roarkarchitect says
Are spent efficiently (at least in my town). It’s wrong for towns to get aid from the state when they haven’t even hit there 2-1/2 limits.
david-whelan says
The closer to the end user the more efficient the spending, thus I want less of my money going to the Commonwealth. I’ll spend it locally and get more for my money. And why should a community (mine) that has a history of passing operational overrides be helping communities that don’t even try?
roarkarchitect says
the downside of getting money “back” from the state is you’re happy to have it in any form – even if it isn’t the most efficient use of the funds.
<
p>While it might make sense to just do some basic upgrades on your local school – it may make more sense just to build a brand new school as the state will pickup up a larger portion of the expense.
stomv says
why should the members of those communities who aren’t even old enough to vote suffer more than necessary because of the shortsighted voting age citizens of their town?
david says
Hmmmm! You’ve been a member of BMG for all of two weeks, and you’ve got us all figured out! Amazing!
stomv says
My Town figured out how to get everybody on board and join. End result: no layoffs. Unfilled vacancies, but no layoffs. We saved on the order of 2.5% of our overall budget thanks to the transition. The local options taxes helped a bit too.
<
p>My point isn’t that every city and town can balance their books the same way mine did — merely that there are creative opportunities, some of them created by Deval Patrick, which help alleviate budgetary pressure without layoffs.
<
p>
<
p>There’s more than one tool to bring a budget in balance. Cutting the number of jobs is one of the tools — but it’s not the only one. W.r.t. the state budget, cutting local aid is another tool. So is the rainy day fund. So is hiking fees. So is reducing grants or other financial transfers. So is selling land. So is deferring capital projects and transferring that unspent cash into operations for a year or two.
<
p>I’m not arguing which tools should be used where… simply pointing out that your “only solution” demonstrates that you’re more “johnny” than “reason.”
johnny-reason says
or give cities and towns the unilateral authority to change plan design. This is certainly something that should have happened a long time ago.
ryepower12 says
for some communities, the GIC would actually cost more.
<
p>Mandating the GIC, for that reason, is stupid. Cities and towns should not have the ability to unilaterally mandate the terms of a contact — it’s anathema to the entire notion collective bargaining. At this point, a lot of cities and towns have switched to GIC, because compromises were able to be made and teachers had to balance the status quo versus more layoffs — and a lot of teachers in a lot of communities take the latter issue very seriously.
<
p>As a general rule, blindly running into things and coming up with solutions that you deliberated over for, say, the time it took you to write out the sentence, generally isn’t going to lend yourself to good ideas from any end of the political spectrum.
johnny-reason says
<
p>You appear to know what you are talking about so I assume you can do the above. That idea seems risky, probably lowers the Commonwealth’s bond rating, and just may be illegal. Isn’t it like using a credit card to do a home renovation?
<
p>
<
p>This idea doesn’t address the structural deficit issue.
<
p>
<
p>Ah, the Romney shell game. I hate this idea. I think fees are nothing more than non deductible taxes.
<
p>
<
p>This just forces comunities to cut more jobs or attempt 2 1/2 overrides.
stomv says
that doesn’t mean that they’re the right tools. Much depends on the projections of future revenue.
<
p>If the state believes that future tax revenue will go up quickly, then some of these techniques may be appropriate. If it’s a long term trend, then yeah, no good.
<
p>You state with certainty that there is structural deficit that isn’t going away soon. I’m not so sure. If you’re right, then lots of the things I suggested (capital, land sales) won’t work. If it’s temporary, then it certainly could be part of the solution.
<
p>You think fees are nothing more than non deductible taxes; I think that they discourage free-loading… why should others subsidize? Depends on the specific application of course.
<
p>As for cutting local aid, I’m not a fan, but it is a tool for the state.
<
p>
<
p>My post was really just to point out that your claim that “cutting state jobs is the only solution” is just plain wrong. Perhaps what you mean is “cutting state jobs is the least-bad solution” — but there’s a big difference between a fact and an opinion.
david-whelan says
It is my view the the state in in structural deficit today and will be for the next few years.
<
p>Kindly please address your idea for using capital funding dollars for operational needs. I said it is probably illegal and certainly irresponsible. Thoughts?
stomv says
It’s something like 400 pages long.
<
p>In this particular Town, money invested into the CIP from general tax revenue could legally be put into the operational budget. What’s the ramification? Two, really.
<
p>1. Town infrastructure would degrade over time, and the long term quality of the town would suffer.
2. The bond rating would likely drop. Moody’s et al look at capital investment as a way to determine fiscal health. Too little investment in capital and they suspect unsustainable operations budget.
<
p>
<
p>It’s not illegal in this case, and it’s not necessarily irresponsible. It depends entirely on how long the operations gap is expected to last. Put another way, if you knew you were getting a mega raise in three weeks, would it be irresponsible to hold off on that kitchen renovation and spend some of that money on take-out and nice restaurants over the next three weeks? Well, it depends on how sure you are of your raise and lots of other considerations.
<
p>I’m not arguing that it’s always a good idea, or even usually. I’m simply arguing that your claim that it’s certainly irresponsible is just plain wrong. It may be irresponsible. The details matter.
paulsimmons says
Given the criticism and outrage about Baker’s vague privatization plan, where are similar sentiments re: relatively unaccountable human service vendors?
cater68 says
Baker’s RMV idea may be a laugher, but Cahill’s response sounds like they woke him up in the middle of the night: “Yeah, just elect me and I’ll get back to you on that.” His hackiness is surfacing…
nopolitician says
The RMV, at least prior to the recent layoffs/closures, is not the villain that it has been in the past. It’s not at all like it was in the 70’s and 80’s, it is not the place spoofed in the Simpsons. You can do most of your business online, and even if you have to go in person, they have a ticket system that classifies your business and gives you an idea as to how long you will wait. My biggest problem has been that, since the cutbacks, the lines have grown. It took me 45 minutes to renew my license (in person) last year simply due to the high volume of people.
<
p>Privatizing this department will surely save on things like pensions and salaries, but the service will likely degrade as the workers become more transient — good people don’t tend to stick around in $8-10/hour jobs very long. If there are any systemic changes that can be made, a better approach would be for the state to make them. Remember, privatizing essentially splits cost savings between the state and the private company — so why give a private company any low-hanging fruit?
<
p>The question is, is the counter staff at the RMV at par with the counter staff at a Walgreens? I seriously doubt it. Although it’s not rocket science, a lot of it is probably a little harder and more custom than just scanning a barcode and making change. It is probably more in line with the customer service at a cable TV counter. And if you’ve ever been to a Comcast customer service center, you would recoil in horror from giving Comcast the task of managing the RMV. They are only able to get away with such shoddy service because they are a local monopoly.
<
p>From what I could find, it seems like Comcast pays about $26k for its entry level customer service reps, and the state pays $28-34k for its entry level reps. However, there may be more layers of management in the RMV — not sure what a “program coordinator” does for $70k, and why the RMV needs several of them. A search for the term shows that the RMV does other things such as the “Massachusetts Rider Education Program” which puts on training courses for motorcycle safety, or another program to help local police spot fake inspection stickers. Maybe that’s what should have first been trimmed rather than counter hours. I doubt Walgreens would provide those services.
ryepower12 says
Some of those 5,000 will come from the 17-staffer office of Representative Bradley Jones (R) in the state house, right? Right? (cue laughter)
takebrowndown2012 says
Given that fact, it is hard to understand how Charlie can talk about “creating” jobs while talking about laying off 5,000 employees from the state’s largest employer. Furthermore, I’d like to know where he thinks these 5,000 dispensable workers are after the state gone through two rounds of layoffs in just as many years.
<
p>Also, The “smartest guy in state government” doesn’t seem to understand that a lot of the so-called savings would be offset by the consequential increase in the unemployment rolls.