Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

    • The crazyness has got to stop. We’ve got to get some serious new revenues up on Beacon Hill, ASAP.

      <

      p>but at least it’s not gambling, right Ryan?

    • My health insurance premiums were increased this year. I’m not a state employee.  This isn’t, per se, an abnormality…  

        1. Your premiums were increased because they cost more, not because the state filed legislation to pay less money toward it.

        <

        p>2. Unions and the state come together to work out a lot of this information. The state shouldn’t just suddenly say they’re paying a helluva lot less than what they agreed to at the bargaining table. While GIC has some limitations in what can be bargained with unions, the overall state contributions – as I understand it – is not exempted.

        <

        p>3. The private sector and public sector have different forms of compensation. Traditionally, public sector employees have been paid less, but get better benefits – including cheaper health insurance. Private sector employees get paid more, but may not get as much contributed toward their health insurance costs. Now, the Governor wants to help offset his budget by altering that balance to where suddenly public sector employees will be paid less and also receive benefits no better or less expensive than the private sector. With that knowledge, why would anyone want to join the public sector and help make government work? People have to be well compensated for the jobs they’re supposed to do if we expect them to do it well.  

        • The Governor has aggressively tried to get local unions to agree to be part of GIC, which would save cities and towns millions of dollars over a few short years. Swampscott, my home town of about 15k people, would have saved $800,000 this year if we entered into GIC on time.

          <

          p>How does it help convince local unions and public employees to  join GIC if the governor is trying to force them to pay more toward their health care? If anything, we should be slightly lowering premiums in an effort to get more school unions on board… which, in the long run, would save the state far more money.

        • In the human services state employees get paid a lot better than empoyees in the private sector. There is no reason why they should get paid more and have to pay less for insurance

          • First off, feel free to back your claim up. I’m geniunely interested in it. Second off, how many employees are we even talking about? I was making a general point – if I find that I’m replying to this thread because there’s a few hundred people in one particular job getting slightly overpaid, then I’ll be ticked for the severe waste of time. The vast majority of public employees I’m aware of are overworked and underpaid   – from teachers to the nice ladies who are employed as my town clerks.

            <

            p>Finally, perhaps the problem isn’t the pay/balance of public sector employees in that particular field, but the fact that private sector employees aren’t compensated well enough. Too often, Americans are more than happy to tear others down to make themselves feel better about themselves, instead of trying to organize to make things better for everyone. Check out “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” for more on that.  

      • Did your health insurance premium increas because the insurance carrier increase insurance rates, or because the company that you work for increased the percentage of the premium that you were required to pay?

        <

        p>I suspect that it’s the former.  

        <

        p>On the other hand, Patrick wants to save money by doing the latter.  AFAIK, state employee’ premiums will also vary as a result of changes in the insurance rates charged by GIC’s carriers.

  2. I’ve been yammering about where’s the promised Medicaid saving that Mr. Patrick promised in his campaign, and apparently Mr. Patrick is proposing same. Hattip if successful.

    1. Easy to read and click around.  Presentation gets an “A.”

    <

    p>2. I read through the education section:  

    <

    p>6% more Chapter 70 aid, which is $ the state gives to local districts to supplement local revenues.  

    <

    p>Consistency in his priorities.  From the beginning, the Gov has had 2 main themes:

    <

    p>a) More quantity/dosage of education.  Pre-K.  Full-day kindergarten.  Longer school day for middle school kids (a big Gabrieli theme).  Big funding increases for this.  

    <

    p>b) More streamlining of education policymaking: early-ed handoff to K-12, K-12 handoff to higher ed, via a Secretary of Ed and changing the Boards around.  

    <

    p>Per Gary’s comment above, this is another area where what Gov said before is same as what is in Gov’s budget today.  

    <

    p>* * *

    <

    p>The thing Gov can’t easily “buy” with a budget is “urgency.”  I suppose one could argue for Gov to substitute quanity of ed with investments designed to create better quality of the hours we have.  

    <

    p>However, if additional coaching and training and data analysis etc is not combined with URGENCY, it tends to be blown $.  Perhaps safer to invest in more tangible stuff.  

    <

    p>I wish Gov’s message to all educators along the lines could be something like:

    <

    p>

    I have shown that my words to support MA Educators with new investments is not just talk.  I’m delivering.  I’m cutting other areas to fund education instead.  I will endure what will be howls of protest from the health care community about my Medicaid cuts.  But putting educators in a position to succeed is my priority….

    ….However, educators need to become RELENTLESS in closing the achievement gap.  Now.  That’s what I ask in return.  We can’t allow some to use our shared goal for greater resources as excuse for not pushing harder now.

    <

    p>Of course the problem with that message is that the already maxed-out subset of educators (see Shack’s post from the other day) resent it.  And the laissez faire educators “steal” the righteous indignation of their hardest working colleagues.  No easy way out of that!

    <

    p>Overall, good job on the Education section of the budget.    

    <

    p>*Disclosure – I’ve had infinitesimally small role in Gov’s education advisory groups.  

    • the preliminary chapter 70 numbers are posted at DOE now.  The full formula spreadsheet has not been posted, just bottom line chapter 70 and regional minimum contributions.

      <

      p>My spot checks on a few towns suggests the governor followed the legislature’s chapter 70 formulas from last year, while using an uncapped price deflator at a bit over 5%, and effort reduction plus downpayment aid applied at 33% as per the five year phase in plan.  If so, the legislature probably won’t disagree with the thrust of the governor’s chapter 70 figures, just with whether or not they can pay for it without the governor’s gambling revenues.

      <

      p>I didn’t delve into the governor’s initiatives (pre-k, longer day, etc) or costs.

  5. To me this budget reflects a good strategic shift for the Governor. I think you have to look this proposal from 2 perspectives.

    <

    p>1. Is this method a more effective means of accomplishing his goals (whether you agree with them or not).

    <

    p>I think the answer to that is yes.  From the governor’s prospective I think it’s better to propose what you want and how you want to fund it as a means of trying to influence the agenda for remaining legislative session. Last year it seems his budget was not geared toward driving the leg session. Hence the strategic shift…

    <

    p>2. Do you agree with what he is proposing. I need to do more research although I’m definitely against casinos, but I think it is fair of him to ask if not casinos then what other means should we use to fund certain budget items or what should we cut.

    <

    p>Overall I think its the right move and again is best viewed from two different perspectives.

    <

    p>

Archives