Good gravy, we've got some delicate sensibilities in the legislature. By the reactions of some legislators, you would have thought the governor went on a tirade and dropped a series of F-bombs:
Sen. Baddour:
“I'm dumbfounded … All of this saber rattling isn't helping us. Other than pure politics, it serves no purpose.”
Dumbfounded! Wow — just can't wrap one's head around it!
Rep. Michael Rodrigues:
“We'll be on guard now and we'll realize that we don't have the type of partner in the corner office that we thought we had … It's the governor positioning his reelection campaign. He's going to now try and position himself as an outsider reformer and run against the Legislature.”
Can you believe it? This guy Patrick has to actually run for office! I'm shocked, shocked that politics is going on in this establishment!
Do spare us the clutching of pearls: The governor's tone has been firm but utterly respectful, by any ordinary standards of politics: “If someone has a better approach, I'm open to it.” But as Jay points out, the complaining legislators don't want respect, they want deference … and indifference. They want to be left alone.
Legislators didn't like it when the Governor encouraged people to get on their horns regarding corporate tax loopholes. Clearly now, the governor is where most of the people are. He's engaging the public. And legislators still don't like it. They don't like being made accountable to the public for the decisions they're making. They don't like having to deal with anyone who's outside the building. They're used to divvying up the pie between special interests inside the State House.
And based on all the mewling, you might imagine that the tone is more important than substance. I mean, let's put it on the table: Sen. Baddour, is the Gov being so mean that the Carmen's health plan should be left alone in conference committee, as it was in your bill? Is that how it works — you're more likely to make bad legislation out of spite for the Governor? I guess it really is about sports, politics and revenge here. [Sorry, no politics — ed.]
These complaints about tone are made as if in a vacuum: As if the public's trust in its government weren't at stake. As if the deals ought to be struck in private, “on Sunday”, without the public getting involved. As if legislators should be free of scrutiny, criticism, or cajoling. As if this were anything out of the ordinary for any level of government.
The governor has been late and infrequent in picking necessary fights with the legislature, and bringing the weight of public opinion along with him. But as Joan Vennochi says, it's most welcome.
More along these lines from Outraged Liberal.
And go Widmer go:
PS: Never mind Matt Viser's “analysis” that poor taxpayers will get “confused” by Patrick's message. He's been pretty consistent on the need for more revenue, and his reform proposals (ethics, transport) have typically been the boldest of the three big players.
If there's a Globe tomorrow (and we all hope there is) … please less news “analysis.” It's usually lame. Please don't make our minds up for us.
Good job with the questions and summations.
<
p>Looks like the lines are drawn: hackish incompetence (can those two words ever be far apart) on one side aka “revenue”, reform and the possibility for hope aka “reform before revenue” on the other.
<
p>As Widmer notes, assuming a quite proper gubernatorial veto the vote on an override will be close. Failure to override will be a big banana peel for the Speaker too, interestingly.
<
p>Without enactment of the gov.’s reform agenda in toto — not just pathetic little symbolic steps that are testimony to wussitude more than anything else — I’d vote NO on any attempt to override a sales tax veto. The idea that the leadership just can’t produce any better alternative (queue weeping and protestations that everyone is just so busy and the process is soooo slow) is fatuous and just will not fly.
<
p>How will our worthy leaders see their duty? And if the legislature botches this, how many seats will the Democrats lose in the next election? Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.
As pathetic as the current effort of our elected “leaders” is, there is no opposition party in this state. Frankly, recent events have helped clarify why. With democrats like DeLeo and his minions, who needs republicans?
<
p>It would be good for all of us to have a healthy two party system but I doubt even this latest display of selfish incompetence will lead to one.
It’s tense at BMG as well, I have posted a few comments that I would have been better off waiting and counting to 10 before posting.
<
p>Please do not take this as choosing Patrick over the Legislature, but we’re going to look foolish if we do not enact pension and transportation reforms. Plus, you know, it’s the right thing do to.
<
p>The House immediately started adding amendments to restore funding based upon the additional revenue of sales tax increase. What’s missing? Where in the budget does the House account for the reform savings. It’s ignored, that’s what is most telling and that’s the reason for the push back. As of right now, the House has completely excluded reforms. If I’m wrong about this and it is included please let me know and accept my apologies. But I don’t see it.
I’ve heard some comparing Gov. Patrick to Gov. Romney in terms of relations to the General Court. What I think is happening is the legislature got so accustomed to running the state without the Governor, either due to absence from the state or being Republican with veto-proof majorities, that they don’t know how to respond to a Governor actually trying to govern and expecting to play a role.
<
p>This is part of how the British Parliament ultimately became the governing body it is today largely independent of the Crown. When Georges I and II came from Hanover they spoke little to no English. The Cabinet realized they could conduct their business without the King’s participation. Not coincidently it was about this time that the office of Prime Minister emerged in its modern form.
Isn’t reform meaningless without serious budget cuts?
<
p>Even assuming that the Legislature reformed the silly rules: credit for library trustee, 23 and out, extras for not running for re-election, etc….the $ savings to the current budget is tiny. Actuaries weigh in here, but the funding formulas give little if any current cash for such reforms.
<
p>Transportation reform. No one, not the Governor not Badour, has claimed that there are large current savings from consolidating some of the Transport Authorities into an Executive Agency. Bardour has gone so far to equivocate that there will be no layoffs in the event of said reorg.
<
p>So, even assuming “reform” to pension and transport, there’s no real dollars on the table here with the reform efforts. Accordingly, I don’t care about these meaningless reforms the Governor is talking about. Reforms that the Governor is harping about are symbolic. Kinda like recycling paper clips in the face of a recession.
<
p>Look at the numbers. Tax receipts in 2008 f/y were $21 billion.
<
p>Current year tax receipts through mid-April stand at $13.9 billion with 2.5 month remaining with a running rate of $1 billion per month. Expect the F/Y ’09 to close with revenues of $16.4 billion or thereabouts, right?
<
p>Therefore, facing F/Y 2010, even assuming growth in F/Y 10 how could any sane budgeter project revenue in excess of, say, $17.5 billion?
<
p>Level funding means around $3.5 shortfall.
<
p>Solution, says the Leg, add a sales tax. That’s an extra $900 million in cash. And the shortfall’s at $2.6 billion. Governor’s gas tax adds a bit less than that.
<
p>Neither the Governor nor the Legislature are addressing where to find the $2.6 billion. Ignoring that short fall, calling for meaningless (i.e. immaterial money savings) is pure negligence.
<
p>Using an old stat, which probably still works, .1% increase in the personal income tax rate brings in about $200 million in additional tax. Therefore to close the shortfall, in addition to the sales tax, there would have to be a 1.3% increase, from 5.3 to 6.6% increase in the income tax rate.
<
p>That’s too much. There is exactly no chance in hell any politician could pass such a change.
<
p>Where to cut? Three places for government: 1) transfer payments (i.e. welfare, medicaid,) 2) employment and benefits 3) local aid, which then translates to employment and benefits, but at the town level.
<
p>Transfer payments are temporarily off limits because of Federal money coming in. That leaves employment.
<
p>Headcount in State government has been locked at 86,000 for many months now. Despite layoff anecdotes, the state appears to have a stealth no-layoff policy in place.
<
p>Every 10% cut in heads means $500 million in savings; no cost in unemployment because of Federal $.
<
p>Isn’t that the only solution: meet the taxpayers half-way. Give me a 20% employment cost cut (layoff, furlough, wage cut, med cost cut….whatever), to save $1.1 billion, and, less than enthusiastically, I’d support an increase in the rate from 5.3% to 6.0%.
<
p>It’d mean the end of Patrick’s reelection bid, and that’s a good thing. But this ‘reform before revenue’ bullshit is just election rhetoric. The real call ought to be ‘savings before revenue’.
<
p>
Your example is overly simplistic. You are portraying “layoffs” as having no consequences. They most certainly do.
<
p>If we lay off 20% of the state troopers, then that means when there is an accident on a highway, people will have to wait longer for help. Or maybe more people will be walking around with shopping carts in their towns because 20% of case workers are gone. Or maybe renewing that driver’s license will take 2 hours instead of 30 minutes because 20% of the counter help at the RMV is now gone. Or maybe your kid won’t be able to graduate on time because that critical course he needs will be taught every 2 semesters and he can’t schedule it this year because 20% of the professors are gone.
<
p>Laying off 20% of the state’s employees will have consequences. Why don’t you choose to portray that? As far as I can tell, because you want people to choose the “layoff” option in as much an uninformed state of mind as possible, because you know that faced with “wait an extra 10 minutes for a state trooper” and “pay 1.3% more in taxes”, which translates to about $600/year for a household earning $50k, they might just pick the tax increase.
<
p>I agree that sacrifices should be spread around. I’m happy to see that you’d accept an increase in the income tax, although you seem to be treating it as the price you’d have to pay to gleefully give 20% of state employees the axe. I’m not saying layoffs should be off the table; I’m saying that if we discuss them, let’s also discuss them in terms of service reductions rather than just in terms of “savings” so that people can make informed decisions.
I pointed out that there are, broadly speaking, only 2 sources of cost savings: 1) transfer payments and 2) employment related costs.
<
p>There are only therefore 3 variables:
1: Raise revenues (would require a rate to rise from 5.3 to 6.6%.) Not politically feasible, particularly in light of recent sales tax hike. Do you disagree?
<
p>2: Transfer payments. The federal bailout money has sheltered them for now.
<
p>3: Payroll. Re: payroll I said: “Give me a 20% employment cost cut (layoff, furlough, wage cut, med cost cut….whatever), to save $1.1 billion….” NOT JUST LAYOFFS. I said that no significant layoffs have yet occurred at the State level. Re-read.
<
p>Because revenues can’t be raised to meet the shortfall and transfer payments are off the table, that leaves 1) pray for economic leap or 2) payroll cuts.
<
p>What part of that analysis do you think is “overly simplistic” or otherwise incorrect?
Even more simplified. First, I left out a variable. The Stabilization Fund, that now stands at about $2.0 billion (IIRC).
<
p>So in the Board Game known as Reform Massachusetts, to meet the $2.6 million shortfall, what combination of tools do you deploy?
<
p>1) Cut labor costs. 10% headcount reduction saves $500 million. Alternatively, it doesn’t have to be headcount, but a combination of wage freezes, furlough, medical contribution changes, etc….
<
p>2) Raise income tax. .1% yields $200 million.
<
p>3) Add stabilization monies. There’s $2 billion to start with. (can’t use too much because any upcoming budget assumes a revenue rate, which if wrong, means no cushion and instant 9c cuts).
<
p>And there’s my point. Faced with this difficult budget calculus, the Governor is bloviating about “reform before revenue”. A deceptive rallying charge, because the reform he’s advocating neither saves costs nor raises revenue.
The simplicity is that you describe one of the three options in super-abstract terms. “20% employment cost cut”. That leads people to choose it because most don’t put one and one together and realize that “employment cost cut” likely translates into “fewer services”.
<
p>I just read a story about how given a choice of “pushing a button” that diverts poison gas from a room containing 5 people to one containing one person, people are comfortable doing this, but if asked to kill someone to harvest their organs to save 5 other people, people won’t do that. The button is enough abstraction for people to choose to kill in one instance, and not kill in another.
<
p>When given the choice of “raise my taxes” and “lay off that guy”, people will likely choose “that guy”. But the choice is really “raise my taxes” and “cut *my” services”.
<
p>I also think there are other options. Defer maintenance. Bonding. I’m not saying they are desirable, but they are other release valves. I would change #2 in your example above to “raise a combination of gas tax, sales tax, income tax, fees, tolls, etc.”
<
p>I suppose there is also “casinos”.
… has been going on forever as a cost cutting technique. It often is used for those things that are not very visible and likely to not turn people into squeaky wheels. The results are disastrous from a revenue perspective. This is what is behind all the infrastructure problems that we have.
Re: other options. You can’t escape the dilemma by creating another cost category, unless that category is significant.
<
p>Maintenance is significant in the Authorities and in some Agencies, but nowhere near the labor cost. Also, maintenance is significantly labor.
<
p>The reason I describe cut employment in the abstract, is because there are many choices: A Governor can go to the Unions and say “I need $z miilion from State workers”; “I need $y million from teachers”; “I need $x from the State Police”, while at the same time working to negotiate an increase in the revenue side. Medical cost sharing, pension. It’s all a labor component.
<
p>This is irrefutable: government is primarily i) interest and principal payments ii) non-debt transfer payments (welfare, medicaid….) iii) labor. The rest is peanuts.
<
p>Debt payment is off the table and also much of the transfer payments. Only labor is left. While my back-of-the-envelope model is simplistic and abstract, it seems to work.
<
p>Look to see how the Legislature and Governor get around it, here
<
p>
<
p>It’s pure denial to assume a $19.5 revenue given a prior revenue of $16. It’s possible, but to count on it while building a ’10 budget is incompetence.
This has been a good discussion. You have outlined pretty plainly what this state is facing.
<
p>I think that everyone is going to have to put politics aside and share in this pain. Although I’m sure there are some rabid anti-government types out there who think that it would be fantastic if the state’s budget shrank from $23bn to $16bn (a 30% cut), and there are some rabid people on the opposite side who think we should just raise taxes so they get back to $23bn, the answer is going to be in the middle somewhere.
<
p>I think that what is desperately needed is some big-picture leadership. Instead of focusing on individual separate proposals, I think that we need to step back and discuss all the potential options — as you have laid out — and all the potential solutions. Minus the fear, minus the screaming, minus the gotchas. We’re collectively screwed here. I think that this needs to be communicated through every public entity in this state, from the MBTA to the toll takers to the municipal level employees. Even though unions have locked in contracts, I think that if this becomes a shared sacrifice with the public chipping in more of their revenue, the workers have to agree to revisit promises made when times were better.
<
p>Based on the current levels of revenue, it is becoming pretty clear that employee costs are possibly too high, although I don’t tend to believe that there are many nonessential services being performed. I think that the state should do a study that compares public sector compensation vs. private sector compensation, on aggregate. I suspect that part of the problem is that our taxes are not progressive, so in this new economy, as smaller numbers of people hit higher heights, greater numbers are being left to stagnate, and this impacts things like tax collections. I also think that, due to national economic policies that used borrowing and bubbles to mask a lack of true prosperity and growth, governmental employees were shielded from a wage deflation that has been ripping through many sectors of our economy, minus some that have been shielded (health care, higher education for example).
<
p>I see this in Springfield — compared to the city’s population, the city employees are far more well paid. Yet it is clear to me that cutting salaries will result in lower quality workers or fewer services, and poor people generally need more services, so I don’t know how to deal with this effect brought upon by this segmentation of wealth.
<
p>However, I think that had the problem been described in that way, rather than by anti-government types just screaming about socialism and crying for lower taxes, screaming about do-nothing state workers, etc., others might have been more willing to listen.
<
p>Once we get to the other side of this crisis, I think that we still need to get a little more reasonable about building cushions into our revenue streams to guard against this kind of stuff happening again. We have been so concerned with being lean and mean that when there is a downturn, there is nothing left to eliminate. Deferred maintenance is a great example — we were deferring maintenance during the boom times, so now that we’re in a bust time, we can’t even open that escape hatch.
Thanks for the very clear and concise portrayal of the budgetary situation. I don’t think it is common knowledge that the state’s revenues this year stand to be more than 20% lower than last year. I don’t think people commonly know that we have a deficit of somewhere near $3.5 billion. I think that most people — due to the likes of Howie Carr — think that we can just get rid of a few toll takers, eliminate a pension for a convicted ex-lawmaker and we’d be OK.
Patrick dips into the rainy day fund, but half of the shortfall is accounted for in budget cuts. The House initially made everything spending cuts and just now added back 900 million in sales tax. The amendments now are determining what will get funded based on the revenue.
That’s the point. On the other hand, Viser’s got reporting chops than none of us here have, and that’s actually more important.
and more hard information than (any) of us here have,.and that’s actually more important.
<
p>You’re analysis is right on this count. Nothing like being on the scene watching it all happen and talking to the key players about it.
<
p>And back I go up the hill.
What I object to is packaging his thoughts as someone else’s. e.g. (in this case) People are Confused.
<
p>Its the sort of contortion a reporter has to resort to to shoehorn editorial into news–and a warning, I think, not to go there in the first place.
after we add revenue from a Sales tax, where are the cuts coming from to balanc the budget? Barring the rhetoric… as anyone on the Hill said exactly where they will balance the $2.6 Billion?
First off, members of the lower house seem to be in their usual narcissitic fish bowl them-against-the-world mode here. Talk about a defensive bunch of people. They take criticism about as well as a pagan takes holy communion. Or at least that is how they are quoted.
<
p>At the same time, and while the sales tax is far from ideal in the least, a piece of me has grudging respect for their revenue raising chutzpah. That was a pretty serious tax hike they just passed. Maybe it was the wrong tax to raise when scored for economic and social equity but $900m is nothing to sniffle at and its not exactly like we don’t need the revenue long-term. I’m sort of surprised they had the sack to go that large.
<
p>And part of the debate here is about targetted tax hikes versus broadbased tax hikes and that is where it gets murkier. The Governor wants specific tax hikes for specific purposes – thus a gas tax to fund transportation, local taxes for local services, etc… The legislature instead passed a broadbased un-mandated hike. Judging which approach is best comes down in part to what problem the tax hike is trying to solve. And the fact is each side is trying to solve slightly different problems and once everyone recognizes those motivations it will become easier to discern a common approach or at least a deal.
<
p>Clearly, if the problem is a general revenue gap then you should seek a broadbased tax hike that preserves flexibility and helps fill the hole. That is the motivator behind the House action. They could have chosen a different tax or set of taxes to hike (I would have preferred an income tax hike but recognize the politics of that were always trickier) but the goal was to raise cash in general and not for specific purposes. Trying to solve a revenue problem through a set of dedicated tax measures would not be terribly effective. You don’t want to mandate all your tax revenues for specific things because then instead of a big hole you will face a lot of smaller holes without the flexibility to shift resources to new or changing priorities down the line. There is a very good economic case for raising revenue without regard to what the funds will be used for – excepting certain cases where the tax hike is not only aimed at raising funds but also at changing behavior, which is what the gas tax is all about.
<
p>The Governor never put his revenue raisers on the table to solve the revenue problem writ large. His intent has always been to ensure that new tax proceeds went for areas he deemed to be priorities – such as transportation and local aid. I support his gas tax hike because I think transportation is in dire need of funds and that to influence people to drive less or change to more carbon-friendly modes of transport the gas price should be hiked. But, the gas tax was never going to get us out of our current revenue hole and was never intended to.
<
p>And there is a principled case for the local taxes beyond just raising money as well. The Governor sought municipal reforms and new revenue powers for the local level to provide cities and towns with more tools and home rule powers, to address the ceaseless rise of property tax hikes and help in a small way to ween locals off Beacon Hill for cash.
<
p>Both sides in this debate have valid arguments for their positions. And they are all trying to solve real problems. The catch comes in determining which of these problems is the top priority – the lack of overall revenue, the lack of local revenue and revenue raising powers, or the lack of dedicated transport funds and the need to move people to more carbon-friendly transport – and whether a deal can be agreed to sort the lot of them now or whether something will have to wait.
<
p>Patrick’s veto threat on the sales tax was all about trying to swing the deal. You give me reforms and I can help you solve the revenue problem. For his political future and out of his concern for the State, the Governor can’t sign a sales tax hike without something to show for it. For some reason, legislators seem to take that personally when its Politics 101. DeLeo got his veto proof majority for the sales tax hike to gain him leverage come negotiating time but you have think he doesn’t want to put his members through an override vote nonetheless.
<
p>I figure it may look ugly now but in the end it will get worked out come July, a big presser will be held in the Senate Reading Room and the big three will hail the spirit of cooperation they have endeavored. Then they’ll prepare for the fiscal 2011 budget wars.
The legislature is an easy target for mockery but they have taken some difficult stands where Patrick has been afraid.
<
p>Patrick was slow to come around on the gas tax. It was only after notable legislators pushed it that he started to get behind it. And now it could be dead.
<
p>And Patrick has not been out front on addressing the fiscal crisis we face. Its clear that new revenues are likely necessary and yet he has not proposed anything on that front. I imagine he will sign the sales tax in the end if he pressures the legislature to approve some of his reform agenda. But, when it comes to taxes, he has not been leading the way forward.
… on the gas tax … then why don’t they pass it?
Here’s an indisputable fact — for 16 years, Republican Governors deliberately failed to address the real financial problems in our transportation system, putting the costs off for a few years, until they got re-elected or they got another job or whatever. And the problems just got worse and worse.
<
p>Now we are at the point where the Turnpike Authority and the MBTA are bankrupt. They are in worse shape than Chrysler and GM combined. And neither branch of the Legislature has provided any kind of real reform. In fact, as drafted, the Legislature’s proposals would make the system even more bankrupt.
<
p>Just one example — all the unions under the Legislature’s proposed transportation authority get binding interest arbitration — if they can’t negotiate a new contract, they go to binding arbitration. Is anyone still around from 1980 when much of the support for Prop 2 & 1/2 came from its abolition of binding arbitration for police and fire fighters? And now the Legislature wants to give that same benefit to all the transportation unions, however many there are, 20 or something?
<
p>Here’s another thing you may not know. We have at least 4 or 5 different public agencies with bridge inspectors, and each agency has its own contract with its own union, its own set of work rules, wages, and benefits. So Governor Patrick proposed that we consolidate bridge inspectors — let’s have one bridge inspectors unit, and try to get some savings, improve and standardize our bridge inspections, and maybe even be able to increase salaries to attract more engineers. The major opponent to this proposal was the environmental community who continue to demand that the parkway bridges remain in DCR and remain separate from the rest of the transportation system. So they won this battle, as the Legislature’s transportation proposal keeps all the various bridge inspectors bargaining units in tact, and Legislators publicly pat themselves on the back while they celebrate this victory.
<
p>All the Legislature’s transportation proposals do is pretend reform, putting responsibility for savings on the Governor, without giving the Governor, whoever that will be, any tools to create savings. Like Weld, Cellucci, Swift, and Romney, the Legislature is putting off our problems once again, delaying the inevitable bills we or our kids will have to pay, and believe that the public will buy it. Seems like these legislators have been in bed so long with Republican Governors that they are starting to resemble them. And don’t get me started about the public pension system.
<
p>There is a Democratic alternative, however, and it’s what Governor Patrick has proposed. I understand that Governor Patrick has disappointed many BMG’ers at times, but, in this case, he is the true reformer, and he needs all the help that we can give him. Reform before revenue — no reform, no taxes — whatever the refrain, the public will not stand for any new taxes unless we upset the status quo. Together we can.
That’s some new info — can you put into a post?
I can understand why DCR folks are loathe to have their bridges incorporated in the state system. The DCR is far ahead of the rest of MA in terms of protecting bridges for users above and beyond motorists. Bike lanes on the BU and Craigie bridge. Maintaining foot bridges over Storrow.
<
p>Frankly, I don’t want the DCR bridges to fall into the hands of a statewide transportation agency because I believe that, with respect to human-powered transportation, the DCR is way ahead of state transportation agencies. Heck, the DCR has more bike lanes on roads in Boston than state roads plus local roads combined. I’ afraid that the state transit agency will put the non-motorist infrastructure at the end of the line, and it won’t ever get the money it needs. They’ll spend money repairing bridges for automobiles but ignore the ones on the parks.
<
p>It’s also worth noting that oftentimes bridges in parks have an aesthetic/architectural aspect that most automobile bridges simply don’t. Will the state agency forgo this? The Emerald Necklace is filled with old, maintained, beautiful bridges because the culture of the DCR is to maintain those assets, even if it would have been cheaper to just rip them down. I value those bridges, and frankly I don’t trust an agency with the mindset of civil engineers trained in the 1950s-90s. — I prefer the mindset of architects and environmentalists, who hire engineers to accomplish their very different vision.
<
p>
<
p>I guess this is a long way from saying: I believe that the DCR is doing a better job than the rest of the state, so I don’t want to risk worse DCR bridges.
<
p>P.S. My wife is a civil engineer, so I’m not hatin’. I just worry about the Robert Moses approach to transportation.
What you see here in this post is a clear symptom of the problem we face. The Massachusetts transportation system is completely bankrupt, and so-called automobile bridges can fall down so long as bicycle path bridges keep their special perks at DCR.
<
p>Significantly, you never answer the question I posed — why does Massachusetts need 4 or 5, maybe even more, separate bridge inspector bargaining units, each with their own work rules, seniority, and whatever? Is it possible that consolidating bridge inspectors into one department might create savings, improve all our state’s bridges, and even make working conditions and benefits better for most if not all of those bridge inspectors? Will having such a department really undermine whatever good work DCR does? Is that really a Robert Moses approach?
<
p>And, God forbid, what if the good work that the DCR does influences the rest of our transportation bureaucracy? Is it inevitable that consolidation will result in the rest of the system bringing DCR down rather than DCR positively influencing the rest of the system? Look at snow-plowing, for example. The Turnpike does an incredible job handling snow, and putting some of the Turnpike snow plow managers in charge of other state highways could really make life much easier and safer for lots of drivers. Let’s not assume that integrating the Turnpike with Mass. Highway will lead to a race to the bottom. Maybe things can get better for everyone.
<
p>But, in order to do that, we have to cut costs, consolidate, eliminate duplication, and give the public real reform. I have yet to see any transportation plan other than Governor Patrick’s that comes close to that. Someone prove me wrong, please.