Does anyone know why Governor Patrick objected to the portions of H4141 that provided funding to two homeless shelters in Taunton and Fitchburg? According to this week’s Beacon Hill Roll Call (in the Reading Advocate), “the governor said that he vetoed the $300,000 because it ‘earmarked funding for programs that are beyond the scope of this item’.” He was joined in opposition to these funding items by the House and Senate Republicans. His veto was overridden, but I’m trying to figure out what his specific objection was.
We can all imagine what the GOP’s objections were.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/sha…
Please share widely!
after the increase in Patrick staffers.
cost us (Massport and some “quasi-government agency”) $200,000.
subsidized my grandson’s “not job”.
The Audacity of Nope
So I’m going to go ahead and guess that you guys don’t know? The two agencies that were nixed sound religious in nature; I wonder if that had anything to do with it?
Haven’t you heard, “faith based” organizations are eligible for taxpayer funding and grants? Did the Governor object on the priciple of separation of church and state? Let’s hope he finds some principles and reverses his crusade for casinos in the Commonwealth.
I thought the faith-based initiative was a federal program. Does Massachusetts fund faith-based social services? Is the money in block grants from the feds? Where can I find out?
Michaeljc4 – you could ask your legislators to inquire for you or go directly to the Executive Office to ask for clarification. I would suggest the former…my experience with the Exec. branch has been only one reply after three months and it was a form letter.
The governor’s office, my rep. and my senator. We’ll see what’s what. Now I’m really curious.
<
p>I left the Catholic Church, too, HeartlandDem, for that exact same reason (along with other, related reasons).
Catholic Charities with grants. That is why Catholic Charities stopped adoptions because the legislature told them they had to process adoptions by gay parents. So yes Massachusetts funds faith based programs.
by the Catholic leadership that re-affirmed our decision to leave that institution.
“the governor said that he vetoed the $300,000 because it ‘earmarked funding for programs that are beyond the scope of this item’.”
<
p>Unless you haven’t been paying attention, earmarking is a sign of corruption. Certainly at the federal level, but also at the state level. Which politician benefactors were going to benefit from the “earmarks”?
Earmarks are not corruption, they may in the least show a preference to a special program…but they are not corruption.
…Patrick has said for quite some time that he does not favor earmarks of any type in the budget. He does not give specific reasons for most (all?) of the earmark vetoes because of this overall budgetary philosophy.
<
p>I would be surprised if many BMGers would object, given that “evil” earmarks have come up several times on this site, and usually not in a positive light. It just proves yet again that earmarks are just horrible, terrible things…until it affects YOUR town or YOUR particular interest (i.e. funding for the homeless).
He’s argued that services would be delivered more efficiently by allowing the appropriate department in state government to manage available funds to address priorities. Not certain that this is why he vetoed the earmarks he did, but it would be consistent with past statements, such as this one:
(The source for this is here.)
Gazebo thing work out with the Governor restoring the Romney 9c cuts following
… did the earmark get pulled by the Admin?
It is a fact of life that all Governors hate earmarks and all legisaltors, mayors and local officials love them.
<
p>Earmarks direct the administration to spend money a ceratin way or on a certain program. Governors argue that earmarks limit their ability to properlay administer the programs according to their agenda….Legislators argue that they know what their district needs are and they should identify those priorities.
<
p>I for one am happy when my legislators get earmark funding for programs and institution in my community. One man’s pork is another man’s bacon!
Ill hold off on judgement before I get the facts but it definitely does not look good. 300k is pennies compared with what the MBTA wastes on personnel and this infernal Charley Card machines. Its pennies compared with lawmaker salaries, perks, and priviledges not to mention the trappings of the Executive Branch. And also to veto right after Christmas just looks heartless especially when the only gift this administration is planning on giving us is the social ills associated with casino gambling.
<
p>I’ve lost my faith in the administration with the casino gambling and while I still have some hope he will do a better job my trust in his judgement has certainly been shaken and this will definitely one vote he will need to earn back.
I believe the vetoes that the original poster is referring to actually occured several months ago, not “right after Christmas.”
<
p>Actually, I’m confused why the poster even posted this now. Patrick did his vetoes of the ’08 budget over the summer, and this only came up now because the House/Senate overrode several of the vetoes over the last couple weeks.
<
p>So any outrage over this should have come over the summer — and it’s a moot point now, since the legislature overrode the veto.
<
p>Also, I’d be interested to hear specifically where you think the “waste” is in the MBTA/lawmakers/Executive Branch budget is. That comment sounds like the Republican debate — “we’ll cut ‘waste’, but we won’t give any specifics”.
I only heard of this two days ago because of the override vote, so you are correct: the veto came in August, I think. My question is, why these two agencies in particular? If you look at the bill, there are tons of other agencies that get funding. My curiosity is about the two homeless shelters specifically. It just seems odd that, in the midst of all these other agencies and groups getting funded, these two were singled out. Perhaps for good reason…I just don’t know, and would like to find out.
The MBTA spent nearly $200 million on the Charley card system which was designed to process fares equitably from all stations and force people to pay the right amount and also was designed to replace people with machines to save money, mainly token collectors. Yet the unions used the excuse that the machines are so darn complicated to retain most token collectors in their new form as “Charley Car liasons” (i kid you not thats the real term) to assist people when they have trouble with machines. These people sit in their new liason booths and read the Herald and do nothing, much like they did in the token booth except this time they have even less duties. So that all seems pretty wasteful to me, and the machines are a lot more annoying and less reliable than the people they didnt replace.
<
p>And thats just the MBTA, we all know the state legislators give themselves huge salaries and also host state legislature conventions and meetings where they literally feed themselves with lavish lunches off the public trough. Not to mention tollbooth collectors who get paid at entry level $50,000 a year to do essentially a menial task that could also be handled by automation. I might add that the entry pay for a new teacher is $35,000 a year, and that the salary for public defenders regardless of tenure is $30,000 a year, tasks far more important than collecting tolls.
<
p>It has become pretty clear that the only areas where Governor Patrick has been successful in his progressive reforms has been areas where the two real Governors of Massachusetts, Sal DiMasi and President Murray agree with him i.e gay marriage. But on issues that threaten the graft and greed of state legislators and public service unions they get their way and the Governor takes a hike.
I guess I’m with you on the example of the MBTA waste you give — I was not aware of that, and I wonder if there’s any end date to the liason position. So you are correct that if those positons were completely eliminated, it could save a few hundred thousand.
<
p>
<
p>Not really sure where you’re getting this from, though. The average state legislator makes far less than what they could make in the private sector. At the very least, the salaries are not “huge”.
<
p>My point is that if you add up all of the “waste”, you’re still left with not a whole lot. Certainly less than what is actually needed to close the funding gaps for an adequate public sector budget (including teacher salaries, public defenders, infrastructure, etc.).
<
p>Yet the unions used the excuse that the machines are so darn complicated to retain most token collectors in their new form as “Charley Car liasons” (i kid you not thats the real term) to assist people when they have trouble with machines.
<
p>So some people (not you) believe that Bostonians are supposedly so illiterate that they cannot read instructions on the automats? In the Munich area, they have been using automats to dispense tickets for well over 20 years. And the instructions are in four languages (German, English, French and Italian). In out little town outside of Munich, there is a kiosk at which people can buy special tickets, but it is “personned” by one person, and they also do a booming buisness selling newspapers, magazines, sandwiches, refreshments, and other things. They don’t sit around, not at all.
<
p>Not to mention tollbooth collectors who get paid at entry level $50,000 a year to do essentially a menial task that could also be handled by automation.
<
p>In the Munich system, people do try to ride “schwarz” (i.e. without paying). Every once in a while, there is a police crew that enters a wagon and checks every person’s ticket. If someone is riding “schwarz” he or she is taken into custody and: the fine is Euro60. A side benefit is that the police help keep crime down on the transit system.