Hey, where’s Deval been? Oh yeah, locked in the office with the green eyeshade on … End of February, Gov. Patrick delivers his first budget. This should be interesting, since apparently we really are dealing with a $1 billion deficit; and remember that Patrick told Administration and Finance head Leslie Kirwan to “lean forward” in terms of coming up with new efficiencies; and he’s asked department heads to come up with some 5-10% in potential cuts. Some loony lib free-spender, huh? We’ll see.
Anyway, I’m particularly interested in how he addresses a few issues:
- Health care: Making a realistic attempt to anticipate the budget crunch for the new law that’s anticipated in 2009. One wonders if he’ll be able to squeeze some efficiencies out of health care, especially nursing homes, which eat up a huge part of the budget.
- The MBTA, which is saddled with enormous debt, is opening a new line this summer, yet which many want to expand to Fall River/New Bedford. How do you balance debt service, maintenance, and expansion?
- Letting localities have an optional meals tax. (I’m fer it.)
Now, the front page of the Globe today showed one glaring inefficiency that ought to be stamped out with extreme prejudice: Cops on roadwork details. This is just stupid, and yet, of course, “there seems to be no political will to change it.” Yup — you want to save some dough, you’ll have to go up against the state troopers. I don’t know … I think the new governor’s got some political capital there if he decides to use it. I’ve yet to hear from a non-cop (or non-legislator) who doesn’t think the road-work details are silly and wasteful.
Gov. Patrick has played it pretty close to the vest so far in talking about his immediate priorities, choosing to go the inside route with the legislature first before he unveils great plans, and obviously constrained by a tight budget. Patrick has so far used the public’s basic trust in his judgement to call off unsensible plans like taking down the Turnpike tolls.
Contrast this with the heavens-storming tone of Elliot Spitzer’s first month in office in NY state, proposing vast restructurings of Medicaid spending, courts, campaign finance, you name it. And it’s easy to be a little envious of that, isn’t it? Didn’t we vote for change, for hope? But believe it or not, New York is more screwed up than MA; almost ungovernably diverse, geographically and politically; with a long history of even more opaque, ossified, and unresponsive governance than MA. They’ve got a different dynamic there.
Still, I sense a degree of antsiness in the grassroots, perhaps a hope that we’ll be needed soon to back up Patrick on some bold initiatives, even if they cut some powerful players a smaller piece of the pie than they expected. I wonder if he’ll really “lean forward” as much as we hope. He does have some opportunities to build credibility as a good steward of the Commonwealth’s tax dollar, as well as grant communities some flexibility in addressing their own needs.
For sure. Many of us have line items we are watching carefully, because they effect very vulnerable people, or our livelihoods, or will tell us whether we wasted out time and money working for Deval Patrick.
I thought that the contractor did. In fact, I just asked my wife, who works for one of the big GCs in Boston. When they’re loading a truck, doing base building, or any other work that requires a detail, her company pays for it — whether or not the cop actually shows up.
<
p>
Does the state also chip in? Somehow, I doubt it. Does anyone have evidence that the state is contributing?
<
p>
I’m not arguing for or against the system… just wondering if the state budget would be improved by changing the system.
though not all, of those details are hired by private companies — NStar, Keyspan, etc. The argument is that the costs of the details get passed along to consumers, but I doubt we’d see a big decline in rates if details were suddenly eliminated. But fer sher, some of the projects are run by public agencies.
<
p>
In general, though, there are probably more effective ways of saving budget $$ than to get rid of details. Which is not to say that the detail law isn’t utterly silly and shouldn’t be repealed.
What percentage of projects — construction, maintenance, repair, or otherwise — are on the state budget?
<
p>
Not a big one.
<
p>
Sure, it may result in higher costs overall — which negatively impacts both producers and consumers — but it’s not clear that the added cost the state bears is more than the extra they take in on the added income tax paid by staties or other officers working all their details.
in today’s paper?
<
p>
<
p>
And what does this mean?
<
p>
<
p>
The state tax rate is only 5.3%!
Steverino, you make some good points, but the general air of superiority that you tend to put in your comments is really, really tiresome. The “um” thing is one of the blog cliches to be avoided, please:
<
p>
<
p>
Can you continue to be the smartest guy in the room, just without lording it over the rest of us so much? Thanks.
I should’ve written about my intention to burn a rainbow flag and rub it in your face. Clearly, that’s the kind of post you wish to encourage.
Constructive comments and discourse: welcome! Petulant trite and ever-so predictable platitudes: not impressed.
<
p>
So we’re talking $13.3M plus state projects. How much total? Maybe $20M, shot in the dark? Don’t forget that the state isn’t paying the whole Big Dig project (the feds kick in what, $8.55B of the $15B), so in terms of state budget, the state isn’t paying all of that $6.1M. I’d bet the same applies to the Port Authority. Now, we’re back down to what, $15M? Again, these are just estimates.
<
p>
<
p>
But they get that revenue on both state and private projects!
<
p>
So, the question is this: does the total detail make $15M/.053 = $283M per year? I have no idea. If the total detail made $283 M then, by back of the envelope, the rule is revenue neutral with respect to the state budget.
<
p>
This, of course, ignores the added benefits that details provides. It does keep more officers on the street, and privatizes the cost to other entities. It also helps maintain a larger police staff, which is useful in cases of emergencies or large events requiring a bigger enforcement presence. I’m not arguing how valuable or how efficient this is, just that it does add extra value to the state.
<
p>
Besides, take away the detail, and you know that in the next union negotiation, the unions are going to fight for a big pay raise to counter the loss of income. So, pay a percentage of it now (and slough the rest off to private industry), or pay it all later.
<
p>
Um.
Staties would have to be pulling in an average of almost $107K for each trooper–but only 123 out of 2300 earned more than $150K.
<
p>
It also assumes that no trooper has any state deductions whatever, and pays the full 5.3% on all pay. That’s just not how it works.
<
p>
Interestingly, while the police unions constantly talk about the benefits of keeping cops on the street, there’s not a shred of evidence for them. I remember a dump of stolen property a couple of years ago that took place directly in front of a detail cop. The cop didn’t call it in–a construction worker did!
<
p>
However, there is plenty of documentation about the high costs of doing business and building multifamily housing in Massachusetts.
<
p>
It’s one of the worst political quirks of this state: We let the voters keep getting screwed, because otherwise our public servants will get mad at us.
<
p>
Watch that population fall.
I’m embarrased not to know this, but does income from private details count towards calcuating retirement benefits paid by the cities and towns?
does the cost the private company pays for the detail also contribute to those pensions?