Deval Patrick has just issued a new chapter in his “Moving Massachusetts Forward” plan. This one claims to be able to save about $735 million each year. And, you know, $735 million here, $735 million there – pretty soon you’re talking real money!
The plan targets legislative earmarking, Medicaid fraud, employee misclassification (i.e., treating workers as contractors when they should be treated as true employees with the attendant contributions to worker’s comp, unemployment insurance, etc.), and pension abuse, among others.
From the press release:
“Cities and towns have endured major cuts in funding and services, eliminating over 14,000 police, firefighters, teachers, and other local workers from 2002 to 2004. At the same time, the median property tax bill for single-family homes rose 42% and fees of every kind have increased and expanded. It is no small wonder we are losing population and hundreds of millions of dollars in investments.”
Examples of state government waste and inefficiency targeted in Patrick’s plan include:
⢠Worker misclassifications that cost the Commonwealth over $150 million annually in unemployment and workers compensation
⢠Insufficient enforcement of Medicaid fraud which cost the state as much as $1.5 billion between 2001 and 2003
⢠Legislative earmarks that have almost doubled in the last 15 years, from $208 million to $408 million (with similar, adjusted budget structures)
⢠An unpredictable pension system in need of simplification
⢠Not leveraging state buying power for common services
Nice work, Deval. This is the kind of specificity we should be demanding from all the Gov candidates – especially those who advocate rolling back the tax rate to 5.0%. I have no problem in principle with the tax rollback. What I have a problem with is candidates who say they want to do it, but who can’t or won’t explain how to pay for the tax cut.
Here’s one local official who voted to put an override on the ballot this May that will be voting Patrick at the convention. Our override will most likely not pass and we’ll be laying off 18 teachers (only 14 if we eliminate all HS sports). Whether it passes or not, we’ll be laying off cops and reducing administrator hours in Town Hall. Where’s our income and sales tax going? It’s not coming back to the towns in any large numbers.
Smartest move I’ve seen Deval make! Crack down on employers (at least on paper, which is perfect a campaign move) and get them to pay more into the system. Romney got away with it in 03/04.
<
p>
Finally he’s leaning his message towards making government more efficient rather than making more government. A great way to calm moderate Dems and show us that he can begin to develop a general election message.
<
p>
I just hope Iâm not reading too much into this and Deval and company continue to be tone-deaf to the swing voters who will decide things in November.
Didn’t we hear Mitt “Myth” Romney tell us he was going to find $2 Billion dollars worth of savings and inefficiencies back in 2002? That was proven to be nonsense and so is this nonsense from Drival Patrick. Neither one of these jokers ever read a state budget. $408 million in earmarks! Where the hell does he think the earmarks go? Alaska? Nope. They go back to cities and towns throughout Massachusetts. Importantly, Patrick ignores the fact earmarks have proliferated has been to avoid REPUBLICAN vetoes. As I’m certain he knows, the Governor cannot vetoe a line item earmark. So, foolish is the local offical who thinks this huckster is selling anything but snake oil.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. Of course the Governor can veto earmarks – that’s what the line-item veto is for. But if you mean that the money previously appropriated for a specific earmarked purpose doesn’t then shift into the general fund, you are correct. The Governor cannot “free up” money by vetoing an earmark but retaining the appropriation of funds.
<
p>
For example: if the legislature earmarks $50,000 to hire a particular employee in a particular agency, the Governor may veto that earmark – but he must also reduce the overall appropriation to the agency by $50,000. That’s what I’m saying.
<
p>
Also, I have to question your assertion that the earmarks go back to the cities and towns. As I recall the budgeting process (though it’s been a few years since I was immersed in it), most of the earmarks were state level. An astonishing number of them had to do with new assistant clerk positions in the judiciary. If you’ve got more details on earmarks going to cities and towns, please give us a link.
most of the earmarks were state level. An astonishing number of them had to do with new assistant clerk positions in the judiciary.
<
p>
Those people are still in MA, participating in the economy, and (almost certainly) paying local property taxes. So, while the money isn’t going to a town’s fire department directly, it is supporting the local economies.
<
p>
But, I do know what you mean.
Remember, those jobs are funded WITH STATE TAX MONEY. The least efficient possible way to re-invest that money in the local communities is to create a new hack job and pay the hack with taxpayer dollars, on the faint hope that the hack will funnel some modest percentage of those dollars back into the local economy. You want to support the local fire department? Increase local aid – that money goes directly to the municipalities. Don’t create hack jobs.
from a Reilly or Gabrieli supporter. Complain that Deval has a lot of plans but isn’t specific enough. But then when he gets even more specific, complain that he’s too much like the last guy, who ran a nice campaign and then started to run for president the day after he won, ignoring most of his campaign promises. And then, of course, there’s the name-calling. When you’ve lost all arguments, you might as well call him names.
<
p>
Maybe if the current governor had bothered to try to work WITH the legislature rather than against it, he would have accomplished something. The best thing that can happen in this state is for a good Democrat to become governor, and finally REDUCE the power of the legislature. This idea that the corner office should go to a Republican for “balance” hasn’t created any balance at all. It’s just given the Speakers way too much power. If Democrats had a real leader to look to, they’d finally institute some real change, and start fixing this state.
<
p>
Gabrieli is a venture capitalist. He’s never run a major corporation or dealt with a massive bureaucracy. Tom Reilly is a good lawyer and has done a reasonable job as the state’s lead prosecutor, though I’m pretty cynical about him choosing to wait until an election year to start looking into the Big Dig.
<
p>
Meanwhile, Deval Patrick has been at the forefront of managing the operations of major international corporations, and making them better businesses.
<
p>
Tom Reilly may have more law and order experience than Deval, though I’d put Deval’s credentials in the U.S. Justice Department as well as his time in the Legal Defense Fund up against that any day. Gabrieli, with his foundation, probably has been dealing with issues of public education longer than Deval has, though I would like to see if Gabrieli has any other ideas on the subject besides afterschool programs. But nobody in this race has more experience reading and managing and making more efficient a multi-billion dollar budget.
<
p>
If “it’s the economy, stupid,” I don’t see how there’s even a contest here.
“But nobody in this race has more experience reading and managing and making more efficient a multi-billion dollar budget.”
<
p>
First of all, I’m a Tom Reilly supporter and I’m not trying to hide it. Second, I’m not writing to criticize Patrick’s plan. In fact, any plan by any Democrat that discusses cost savings is a good thing, since it speaks to the heart of the independent voters who will ultimately decide this race. (Much like making good on the voters’ mandate for the income tax rollback.) I expect to see similar proposals from other candidates during the campaign.
<
p>
However, I want to get a better idea of the basis for your comment above. I understand that Mr. Patrick was General Council for Texaco and Coke, but what does that have to do with managing their finances? Those companies have CEOs and CFOs who manage the financial end. A person in Mr. Patrick’s capacity generally manages a company’s legal work, unless his job description exceeded that of the typical General Counsel. I’m sure that Mr. Patrick had a budget for his division, but Tom Reilly has a budget for his office too. It does not seem to me that Mr. Patrick is distinguished from his opponents in this regard.
<
p>
Just because we would like to believe things or we say things, does not make them fact.