Highlights in 2007 include the historic vote on same-sex marriage, lower rates and increased choices in auto insurance, implementation of health care reform, development of a statewide anti-crime council, passage of the film tax credit, the creation of thousands of new jobs, attracting new and dynamic leaders in important areas like the Department of Corrections, DSS, and DCR, the passage of Commonwealth Corps, and national leadership in clean energy and environmental issues.
Already this year, the Governor has worked with legislative leadership to reach a compromise on closing corporate loopholes, create an Education Secretary to lead the next round of education reform, and put in place a child advocate for the first time in state history. The Appellate Tax Board closed the loophole on telephone poles, which when the process is completed will raise millions in new revenue for cities and towns. In addition, Governor Patrick filed a budget that balanced nearly half a billion in savings and efficiencies, new revenue, and targeted investments in job creation, education, and public safety.
The administration has a strong, coordinated plan to continue to bring fundamental change to state government. As part of this plan, over the next month, Governor Patrick will highlight the administration’s work on the economy:
April 1st – Kick-off of managed competition in auto insurance.
First 2-3 weeks in April – Major announcements of companies deciding to expand in MA, providing nearly 1,000 new jobs for MA residents.
Week of April 7th – Governor Patrick will deliver a major policy speech on the economy.
Month of April – The Governor will undertake a statewide tour of chambers of commerce and local communities, in order to highlight the administration’s efforts to support regional economies with real, deliverable programs and initiatives.
First week of May – Governor Patrick will deliver an address to the Boston Chamber of Commerce.
In addition to the focus on the economy, Governor Patrick will continue to work with our legislative partners through the end of the legislative session. We expect to finalize and sign into law legislation over the next four months dealing with life sciences, energy, oceans, and public safety, as well as pass bond bills in areas like housing, transportation and the environment. All of these issues are being worked on jointly with Speaker DiMasi, Senate President Murray, and members of the legislature. In addition, we will announce a series of transportation reform initiatives over the next few months as a follow-up to the joint announcement of the Governor, Senate President, and Speaker last week.
May and June will bring the results of the Readiness Project. As the leading example of grassroots governing, the Readiness Project has not only brought over 100 experts, activists and practitioners in education together to help prepare our children to compete in the global economy, it has also included a number of town hall forums and over 800 “ready rep” volunteers who are connecting these reforms to their local communities. We fully expect that the results will lead to a robust, inclusive conversation about how MA can build upon its success to better prepare our children for the future.
With the demands of the 24-hour news cycle, it is even more important to maintain a long-term view, both of how far we have come and where we want to go. I believe it is what made the campaign successful in the end, and what has made and will continue to make Governor Patrick successful.
should all agree to a listening tour, together, with town meeting style forums. You all need to listen to people and defend your ideas publicly. It would be great for democracy. Np more backroom deals or media sniping. Just open discussion and debate.
It’ll be summer soon, and we’ll need ice cream sandwiches. They’re not too expensive, and, because they are sandwiches, are better for you than most ice cream products. And, they’re very quiet to eat, no slurping or licking sounds, so we’ll be able to hear you defend your ideas as we eat.
8 ratings (at this time), 1 zero, 3 sixes!
<
p>I thought it was brilliant; you really do want free food at such events if you want people to come…
I would have given it a ZERO with Mr. Owens, but then I looked at the calendar. “they” is as April foolish as they come!
I may be the oldest individual posting here. I am a retired commonwealth employee and have an in depth knowledge of some of the egregious waste of taxpayers dollars , which has nothing to do with the present administration, other than that they are in the process of putting their own seal of approval on it it as well.
<
p>TRhat being said, how about we have an across the borad state sales tax? We have a booming underground eceonomy. Billions are untaxed. We have an extraordinary amount of illegal aliens in MA who pay zero taxes. If we have a sales tax, we can recoup these wasted and uncollected tax dollars.
<
p>The current income taxes is crushing the very people who are honest and the most hard working. I know full well that there will be an arguement that this hurts the poor.
If the sales tax is worked properly, the “poor”, so called, won’t be hurt at all. There are billions that are out there that can be ethically and legally taxed and the governors and legislatures in the past look the other way. Why, because it is inconvenient and may cause their chances of re election to be imperiled? That is no excuse.
<
p>If the current governor wants to make a change—how about a fair and equitable system of taxation. Everyone who enjoys the fruits of the commonwealth should contribute.
<
p>Thanks for listening.
We already have a state sales tax. Are you saying you want to raise it and by how much?
<
p>
We already have sales taxes. If we add more sales taxes, one effect will be more “underground economy”, yet you say that’s exactly the problem you want to solve. I’m confused by that. If you think we already have too much of the economy untaxed, then you might be arguing that we could recoup more money by lowering sales taxes a little, but you seem to be saying the opposite.
<
p>Income taxes by design fall on those who can afford to pay them. If you feel like your income tax is a hardship, you’d be much worse off trading that for higher prices for everything (which is what a sales tax does), because on balance more of that would fall on you. Unless, that is, you spent a lot less, if you’re in a position to do so: which is another reason why shifting from income tax to sales tax is perilous, because when people spend less there’s less of an economy overall.
Income Tax may hit those earning the most money, but Sales Tax hits those with the most wealth. However, at the State level, it is too easy to avoid paying sales taxes, especially easy for the wealthy.
<
p>Maybe there is an opportunity to changed the Corporate Tax system. Although it may be complicated, I would like to see Corporations taxed on sales in Massachusetts, with tax credits to reduce their burden for every MA resident they employ who pays MA personal income tax. The companies that only sell in MA take our money, whereas companies that employ in MA could have the playing field leveled for them.
And how about a community wide conversation on what kind of government we want those taxes to pay for?
We need regional summits of cities and town so that we can discuss the issues we are facing and stop the infighting. This has to be an interactive dialogue. I would suggest having state and federal officials there.
<
p>Burt Buchman
It’s a political speech in defense of the failings of the governor. I’m tired of hearing speeches about “the present administration has the best of intentions” Talk is cheap. How about backing it up with action. You can talk this to death and finger point for the next two years and ten months. How about going up to the state house, gathering some folks who have done something in their life beside work on a degree, and make some changes. Bill Weld, with all his problems, went nose to nose with the senate president and got stuff done. Sen. Bulger got a lot richer as a result, but things got done. Ed King bailed the state out of an economy in free fall. Ed may have been abrasive—but he got the job done. This is reality—there are millions of citizens who are facing some financial tough times and the state house et al are playing their violins!
<
p>Excuses are no longer operative. You folks are sitting on ground zero and the buck stops with you.
Governors accomplish things in our fine Commonwealth? Why isn’t His Expediency on your list, I wonder.
I think our conservative friend has a point. As another King might say, “A little less conversation, a little more action.”
a little more corruption is the answer.
He may have been Reagan’s ‘favorite Democratic Governor’, but still. Paul Szep used to regularly depict Gov. King in the Globe wearing a propeller beanie, emblazoned with the King campaign slogan: Can Do.
<
p>After King left office (one and done), he sued the Globe and a certain cartoonist for libel, but it was dismissed.
while in office from 1979-1983. He surprised incumbent Dukakis in the Dem primary in 1978. He did switch parties later, maybe 1986-87?.
he thought about running again as a Republican, but that went by the wayside as it was obvious that he would of had his a** kicked in the general.
I just always think of him as a Republican. I stand corrected.
If the casino issue has been “decided in the Legislature”, does that mean that Governor Patrick will not spend just shy of $190,000 to study casino gambling, and that he will not support efforts to make this proposal into a referendum?
Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Dan O’Connell has decided to finish the casino study – we think the data may prove useful if needed in the future. The Governor has not supported efforts to make this proposal into a referendum, although we remain open to reviewing any ideas that come from House and Senate leadership.
With all due respect, it is exactly this type of word-parsing that is so disappointing.
<
p>You state that Sec. O’Connell “decided to finish the casino study” suggesting that the decision is not the Governors.
<
p>Ridiculous. If my employees “decided” they wanted to spend $190,000 of my business’ money on something I disagree with, then I certainly would either change his mind or fire him.
<
p>Your answer is either a lie (the Governor actually made the decision to go forward with the study), confusing (you suggest that this is an underling’s decision at the same time you say “we think the data may prove useful if needed in the future”), or ignorant (I suppose its possible you may not understand that the Governor actually gets to tell his appointed Cabinet members how to do their jobs).
<
p>The second sentence in your “Quick Answer” doesn’t even qualify has an answer.
<
p>If you would never say the opposite aloud (“we remain closed to reviewing any ideas that come from House and Senate leadership”) and insist on framing your “answer” with vague verb tenses (“has not supported”), I think it’s only fair for the reader to question your veracity.
Cabinet Secretaries make many decisions within their agencies on a daily basis – by including the fact that we think the data may be useful, I thought I made it clear that we agree and support the decision of Secretary O’Connell.
<
p>As for the second sentence, I would hope that we could disagree without questioning the veracity of my responses.
<
p>Thanks.
I appreciate the opportunity for public dialogue. Your detailed original post and willingness to respond to BMG user comments has spawned an excellent debate.
<
p>Seriously.
<
p>Yet, I still wish you had said something like the following in your original reply:
<
p>”The Governor has authorized Sec. O’Connell to finish the casino study. Though $190,000 is a lot of taxpayer money, the Administration continues to believe that it is worth investing in a comprehensive study of this issue given the potential for hundreds of millions of dollars in new state revenue.”
<
p>Or something like that. I just think it is important that the Governor takes full responsibility for the actions (and particularly the spending decisions) of the Administration.
<
p>I guess I still question the veracity of the part of your response that said “The Governor has not supported efforts to make this proposal into a referendum.”
<
p>But if that’s really true, then why not?
<
p>Again, I truly thank-you for taking all of this time to engage in a conversation with us taxpayers and voters.
I just read your suggested reply – it is very good. I appreciate the feedback, and will take the advice to heart. Thanks for the conversation.
There has already been plenty of soaring rhetoric. While words are powerful, it is revenue that pays for programs.
<
p>It is focus on one major issue at a time until that issue, and programs which support resolution of that issue, are functioning that creates a legacy of positive change.
<
p>The purpose of government is to collectively accomplish what individuals cannot accomplish “on their own.”
<
p>Examples of those societal tasks which must be done jointly, through government expenditures and revenues collected by government:
<
p>1. Repair and maintenance of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and public buildings [whether the State House or UMass…]
<
p>2. Education of those who are not able to bail [by bailing, I mean paying for private education or receiving scholarships to private education because they are in the top 5% of intellect or test score]. In Lowell, the student teacher ratio is 1:41. Tell me what it is in Lincoln…or Weston…
<
p>3. Economic security, where the strong protect the weak. FDR and Abraham Maslow http://www.businessballs.com/m… both understood that hungry people don’t care about “democracy” or high-flown language. They want food and shelter, first. As an example, due to the failure to support public higher education, only 17% of the students who enroll in our Community Colleges get degrees while 90,000+ jobs that require those degrees go unfilled. https://www.communicationsmgr…. Filling those 90,000 jobs would sure look like job growth when 90,000 more citizens are employed. Hint: employed people become consumers and tax payers. Unemployed people do not.
<
p>4. Honest revenue sources, not shell games based on gambling. An example of an honest revenue stream would be a graduated income tax rather than relying on the lottery to fund cities and towns, which is no more than taxing the hopes of the poor to let the wealthy and middle class “off the hook” and out of paying their fair share. See http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/ra… and http://www.mises.org/story/249 and http://www.taxfoundation.org/b…
<
p>5. Listen and involve more than “stakeholders” – by only appointing judges, CEOs, and the like there is a vast pool of talent being ignored. True civic engagement utilizes inviduals with “on the ground” experience in agencies and issues, not only presidents, chairmen, and graduates of Harvard!
<
p>Honestly, if you were going to swing for the fences with one revenue producing idea that had a decent chance of failing, you don’t think that reforming our tax system would have had more upside?
<
p>I don’t know who’s running the agenda over there, but can I have a job?
First you need a cool alternative proposal that fails because of the mean nanny/mob/legislature, then you can raise taxes and it won’t be your fault. You can’t have your first proposal be to raise taxes, even on the rich.
<
p>Do any states have a graduated income tax?
California has progressive rates, and an $11 billion deficit.
<
p>New York too. And a deficit too.
<
p>Good examples.
A comprehensive list.
<
p>You are the best Amberpaw!!
As to #4, alas, the Supreme Judicial Court decided long ago that a graduated income tax would violate our State Constitution (Amendment Article 44 to be specific).
<
p>Back to the drawing board?
or the constitution?
you all must be as tired as I am- here’s the governor’s main pr guy looking for suggestions, which everyone here is usually brimming with, and all you can do is jump on mcrd about his ideas? I’m not sure I get where you’re coming from.
And well said. Fortunately, second chances are allowed on the internet, just look below.
<
p>Personally, I like the green economy suggestions because that unites progressive politics with some of our economic strengths: universities, venture capital, and technology — and it is an area poised for growth.
I’d like to see the Governor’s economic plan focus on spurring innovation, and I’d like to seem him talk about that as an overall strategy, not just in bits and pieces.
<
p>He’s got some of the pieces already, especially the strong focus on education, including secondary education. Improving the UMAss system ought to be part of that. There are states (such as California) whose public universities compete with top private universities, and those states have high innovation.
<
p>We need to not try to lure large employers to Massachusetts with tax incentives and zoning exceptions and so on, because that is a waste of time and effort, leading on the wrong directions. Massachusetts is strong at spawning its own businesses, and we need to focus on improving the environment for them. I recall Patrick starting something on that front last year, but where is it going? That’s something to emphasize.
<
p>Most especially, we need to focus on being a place where people who innovate want to live and can live. Gay marriage is significant here, because entrepeneurs and innovators want to be somewhere that is diverse and socially open. However, we also need to do more to promote a culture of local music, art, and creativity. For example, Boston has been hostile to 18+ music clubs and similar establishments, and that is a way of shooting ourselves in the foot. The state ought to counterbalance Boston and promote more such spaces.
<
p>A key component of being an open, diverse, innovative place, conducive to high tech startups, music, arts, and science, is acceptance of the weird and unusual. We need to encourage people to be quirky. Along those lines, we have made some tremendous mistakes in recent years, some of which Governor Patrick was complicit in. Arresting MIT students at gunpoint for wearing cicuit board art, or treating cartoon characters as a terrorist threat and demanding penance from the supposedly guilty, are acts that declare to the public: don’t do anything strange or unexpected! Don’t be weird! If we don’t understand you, you will pay a price. This is an EXTREMELY damaging trend, one one of the gravest threats to Massachusetts’ economy and its future.
<
p>And when it comes to being a place where people can live, as opposed to merely wanting to live, we have two big problems: Restrictions on immigration, and housing prices. Perhaps the recent housing collapse will do us some good, but the state needs to help with more affordable housing, and creative ways to keep diverse dense neighborhoods from becoming hyper-expensive.
<
p>On immigration, the federal government is primarily to blame, but Massachusetts needs to take a stronger stand. Patrick can give public support to our congressional delegation to fight, in a unified and strategic way, to allow foreign students to come to our colleges more easily, and foreign scientists to do research here without threat of mistreatment every time they fly home or here. We can pass that in-state tuition bill, and support “safe harbor” cities, and show the federal government that we desire and value immigration.
<
p>We need to tie all of these disparate pieces together, and make it clear that they are part of a grand strategy to spur innovation, street culture, diversity, science, and entrepeneurship. That is Massachusetts’ strength, and that is where our best future lies.
For example, my understanding is that about 97% of new jobs come from local businesses with less then 10 employees. See: http://www.inc.com/news/articl…
<
p>Far smaller “tax credits” for “new employees” or a “first year” credit on the net income of new small businesses would cost much less then luring and wooing “big employers” many of whom play “milk the government and leave” – kinda like “love ’em and leave ’em” – where small businesses are done by natives who will stay where their families and kinships sytems are.
<
p>So if 1000 new businesses each are able to hire 5 employees each – that is still 5000 jobs…there is solid social science research on this, going back to Abraham Maslow.
Although the city’s attempts to reign in 18+ nights don’t affect me directly because I am 24, I agree with the point that you made. However, the reason the city was heavy-handed last year with the clubs is that there was an increasing wave of violence at 18+ club nights, although that seems to have more to do with the clientele that they attract. Down on Lansdowne Street, the clubs would have hip-hop and reggae nights, which would bring in people from such places as Roxbury and Dorchester, and we all know what’s going on over there. Generally, I would not go to these events; however, I have been to dance nights at Harpers Ferry in Allston Rock City, also home to a large student ghetto, and while most of the patrons would not cause issues because they are not stupid drunks, one night during the winter I was outside the club, and some jackoffs were picking up snow/ice on the ground and chucking it at traffic on Brighton Avenue. Some of that traffic included police cruisers. I would like to think that they managed to slip over from the Kells across the street, but these bad apples, whom the clubs cannot seem to reign in, ruin the experience for everyone.
<
p>In general, the city does not want an extensive club scene. Lansdowne Street is undergoing a major transformation because of the Red Sox. And why not? The clubs bring in perhaps 4,000 or 5,000 on certain nights, but the Sox bring in 37,000 every night. This phenomenon is evident in Avalon and Axis closing and being redeveloped into a House of Blues. Menino wants the area to become Boston’s version of Wrigleyville, the Chicago neighbourhood where Wrigley Field and the Cubs are.
<
p>Besides, the city has never been a great place for live music. The best clubs in the area, which are 18+ full time, the Middle East and TT the Bear’s, are both on the other side of the river in Cambridge. The other places which host local acts routinely, such as Bill’s Bar and the Paradise, pale in comparison to those two.
<
p>As for the housing situation, it’s impossible to snap the fingers and see new developments. This region is already one of the most densely-populated in the nation. Remember, the City of Boston is 48 square miles of land area, and almost everybody wants to live in the city. Somerville is even denser than Boston. The area is already at capacity, and there is limited space. Those who want to experience urban life are being relegated to the suburbs. Having said that, the Commonwealth can assist in the development of other urban centres that are readily connected to Greater Boston.
The great thing about being 24 is that you can make great pronouncements based on a limited body of work, I know I did.
<
p>Boston had great music venues for years – Tea Party, the Rat, The Garage (where the Paradise now is), Paul’s Mall, the Channel (more or less, saw the Temptations and Southside there) and so on. Many got priced out by rising real estate values over the years, or bought out by corporate music. I do think the Pavilion is one of thebest places to see a concert in the region, but their tastes may be too “boomer” for some people.
<
p>As for Wrigleyville, I visited there a couple of years ago when the Sox played the Cubs. Loved it! Lots of good hangouts, a bunch of us ended up having a beer with Bronson Arroyo (remember him?). Anyway, most of the public money going into the Fenway area is state money, mostly transportation, city’s main role is permitting/zoning, maybe some investment in the new Fenway Community Health Center.
I’d like nothing more than to rally around the Governor to help push some of the most important proposals. I’m glad to see that we are, indeed, on the verge of passing some great and important bills in life science and renewable energy – those will go a long way to accomplishing the campaign’s original goals, and achieving large parts of the Governor’s agenda.
<
p>However, I truly hope you mean it when you say the casino issue is done. I think we should immediately cancel the remainder of Spectrum’s study, as it’s a complete waste of money from a 100% biased source.
<
p>Furthermore, there aren’t a whole host of people who care nearly as much about the casinos as they do their health care costs, energy costs and the faltering economy.
<
p>Personally, I think the Governor’s best bet is to tap into his people-powered army yet again and try to get involved in Senate President Murray’s health care affordability bill – so we can have an impact in making sure it’ll actually be a powerful tool to keep rates from continuing to spike. Furthermore, the Governor’s focus on regional plans to address the economy is very important: he should meet with groups like Neighbor to Neighbor and the Coalition for Social Justice, to see what they think is important and what they’d be willing to move on… and make those priorities in the administration’s agenda. I suspect that the New Bedford train and Blue Line extension, among other issues, would be high up on their priority lists.
<
p>There’s a recession going on, but that doesn’t mean we can afford to make cuts to the areas we need spending the most. Nor can we continually ignore the necessary infrastuctural improvements that need to be made across the state. Doing so will not only prolong the recession, but make sure the next recession comes quicker, lasts longer and is far worse for the ordinary citizen. Most of all, we need real solutions… and the only way that’s going to happen is by listening and engaging with citizens across the state, and getting them to do the heavy lifting on these important matters – but that means the Governor has to support the core issues facing all of us, not issues that are at best a distraction.
Doug, I am pleased to welcome you to BMG. I am very happy that you listed the many accomplishments of the Governor and the successes that you have shared with the Legislature.
<
p>So much focus was given to casino gambling by BMG posters, the media and quite frankly by you guys in the administration, that it was easy to overlook some of your other accomplishments.
<
p>When reviewing the agenda items past and present it seems that there is much more that the Governor, DiMasi & Murray agree on than disagree.
<
p>To be honest, I was happy to see the casino bill defeated, it was a bad policy in the first place. I look forward to more accomplishments in the future.
I recall a brief emphasis on “kitchen cabinets” but there was not much listening. Those of us who work in the trenches may well give more honest feedback then the presidents and CEOs who dwell in board rooms. Some of us, anyway. Thanks for opening a door.
raise the gas tax to fund road and bridge restorations, as recommended by the transportation finance commission. Do whatever we can to make ma a center for green automotive technology/research/manufacture. end ms’s dependence on oil and encourage defense contractors to move to Texas. Sorry, raytheon.
I remember how shocked I was to learn that for more than a decade, Great Britain has required that roofs be made of solar panels in ALL new construction.
<
p>As an energy dependent state [no oil here!] going green is critical to financial health for this state.
<
p>To what extent hydropower, including small and medium hydropower, which fueled the First Industrial Revolution [think Lowell, friends] could be used and restored using today’s computer technology has always fascinated me.
<
p>My town has seven unused “mill rights” that once powered this town. The history of water power in Massachusetts is fascinating, actually.
<
p>For a start, see: http://www.americanforeignrela…
<
p>http://www.mvgazette.com/news/…
<
p>[Tidal power as a more reliable potential energy source than wind power. The tides come every single day.]
the tide is what anchors the moon to the earth. If we start holding back the tide, the moon might fly off into the sun and cause a permanent eclipse, resulting in total darkness.
I’m in Milford, just south of the Mass Pike along 495. Out here, we have dozens of abandoned mills, most of them situated on rivers. I’d love to see them getting re-used as manufacturing centers for the gree economy, and we could begin the process by using river-power to provide electricity to the facility.
<
p>There are many ways they could be utilized – manufacturing solar panels, or home-sized windmills that generate electricity, or solar hot-water systems. There’s dozens of other ways these site can be re-used in a green economy…
.. Out here in Ayer there is a Gentleman who bought an old Hydro electric plant, built a New Environmentally friendly building along the river, rebuilt the dam and the hydro electric plant but is in his 4th year of trying to get it permitted with the Feds to be able to sell to the Grid his surplus power. Also the environmental hurtles are enormous in MA to doing this. They lobbied both Mitt and Deval to include this in any energy proposals but are generally put off.
<
p>I agree 100% about what a great idea it is to do this as it is a waste of exisitng resources not to.
However, it is complicated and the permitting process takes time. In order to make it work well, they need a good drop in water level, and damming is the best way to achieve that. But, you can see the problems that may cause upstream if not done right.
It was pointed out to the State when the issue of the dam in Ayer was brought up that removing it would drain the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge wetlands.
<
p>Incentives for the restoration of these already existing plants should play a role in any energy policy.
I’d like to hear more about what the Governor is doing regarding civic engagement. Commonwealth Corps is good, though the sense I get is that most people I know haven’t heard of it, or if they have don’t know exactly what the organization does. It needs to be more public. What is the change? How is Commonwealth Corp helping MA?
<
p>I’d also like to see the Governor (and Secretary of State, fwiw) actively push for:
I think that if the Governor is really serious about engaging the citizens of Massachusetts and making our democracy stronger, those are three great ways to do it. I know none of those will pass immediately, but I’m looking more at the “long-term view,” as you put it.
yes, yes, yes, yes!
…..comes (ahem!) this diary advocating the filing of legislation to mandate civics.
<
p>It was written well befoe the filing deadline for this session.
<
p>Not one citizen or legislator moved to act.
<
p>So, the ‘Yes, Yes!’ that civics invariably engenders falls a little flat with me.
“You all had your chance, now I’m just gonna snipe!”
and you’re sniping at me, and out-of-stater? nice work, peter. your finger pointing falls flat with me.
if i was in-state, as you assumed, i’m wondering what you had hoped to accomplish by your snipe.
That’s, um, surprising! Did we know this before but missed it?
to both question would have to be yes. used to live there, still have major ties there. as time rolls on and faces change in the legislature, i am less and less attuned to the nuances of the political players. but it is astonishing how similar the elements of argument are no matter where you live, because we all get around to having the same or similar debates eventually.
are Core Subjects under the new 21st Century Skills frameworks. Indeed, the core has been expanded to include (note the break-up of social studies as we’ve historically known it):
<
p>
I took a required civics class at Greater Lowell Catholic High School in my Junior year of 1990. Perhaps they don’t teach it anymore?
Some high schools (or I should say school committees) on their own volition require it, some do not (most, I should say). It’ll be making a comeback, but they have to revise the frameworks to accommodate it. See my post in direct response to Mr. Rubin.
In FY 2008 alone, the Commonwealth channelled $150 million to the 351 cities and towns of the Commonwealth, for work on roads and bridges. This money is apportioned every year. Click the link to see what your town got just this year.
<
p>Ch. 90 is funded with a combination of transportation bond money and gas tax, and it allows local municipalities to set their own priorities and do repaving, sidewalk construction, etc., according to what THEIR town wants.
<
p>This is an efficient and fair system, already in place. Appropriate more if you think it necessary, but many DPW’s don’t spend all the money they get in a given year.
Isn’t it supposed to be painted regularly so it doesn’t rust? Is that Boston’s responsibility or Massachusetts’s?
Mme. Porcupine – if the state owns a road or bridge, that money cannot [that line item] be used to maintain it.
<
p>Someone besides me will need to figure out and post the proportions [town vs. state roads for example]
<
p>Much old infrastructure is abandoned, such as earthen dams owned by dissolved companies – who repairs those? Bet someone here knows.
<
p>I repair the friggin thing. Same with all the rest of the dams in the State. The owners repair them and maintain them and swear at them. Since I own land with an old abandoned dam, it’s my responsibility to make sure it doesn’t break and damage something/someone. Can’t fill it in because it’s a wetland. Can’t break it; that would require permissions of Towns, County, State, Federal, EPA, DPW and would cost thousands in fees, lawyers and paper … and 20 minutes with a backhoe.
The unfortunate reality, however, is that the transpo bond isn’t going to provide sufficient funds. It is essentially a stop-gap measure.
<
p>The bond is going to make at best a small dent in fixing the state’s almost 500 structurally deficient bridges. Further it does little-to-nothing to deal with the MBTA’s huge debt load that it carries while putting new costly projects on the map.
<
p>That said this is, as the Pioneer Institute put it, “a valuable first step in the process of improving the effectiveness and accountability of our transportation spending.” (emphasis mine)
The Globe’s story on March 28 on the State Senate’s Transportation Reform proposal did not include the money quote from Senator Murray. We heard it on WBUR and found it on the front page of the subscriber only State House News Service.
<
p>While the Mainstream Media focused on one of the most controversial pieces –allowing civilians to monitor construction sites — Senator Murray’s strategic quote indicates that she understands the importance of putting this new policy proposal inside the context of rebuilding the public’s confidence in government.
<
p>Can we rebuild and repair our transportation infrastructure with out additional revenues? Well, she’s proposing we take the first step.
<
p>Cross posted on ONE Massachusetts
just like a republican no new taxes, borrow borrow borrow and let the next administration pay off the bonds.
You folks in the corner office on Beacon Hill are still something else. Suggesting that any criticism of anything you do is just wrong. Why don’t you just mandate that we go to re-education camps until we agree with your policies.
<
p>DiMasi saved Deval from himself on casinos. There is a huge disconnect when gambling, a regressive tax on the poor, is the cornerstone of a Democratic administration’s plan.
<
p>This mi’s-steps are unimaginable. But I will reserve judgement. However, the term that gradually fits into this picture is betrayal if vision.
<
p>Think about it. Nice words need to translate into good policy!
<
p>It takes a village.
… you’ve “reserve[d] judgement”….
Medic! get over to BMG stat, stop the bleeding……..
<
p>Nice to see the ambulance was able to make it here Mr. Rubin… but me thinks the patient already lost too much blood…..
and start a dialog, what could come from that? Vote Republican! No one will ask for your input, just fall in line.
Methinks the one screaming “medic! medic!” and making strained ambulance analogies might be the one who could lighten up a tad.
it was a direct response to the D’oh Deval thread and others like it?
The Chief of staff to the Governor has nothing better to do than go on a blog.
<
p>Of course this had everything to do with the D’oh Deval piece and Rubin’s response is directly in response to it.
n/t
<
p>Re: the creation of new jobs thing: Aren’t jobs and the attendant employment workforce actually down in Mr. Patrick’s term to date?
In fact, the Commonwealth has created 16,000 net new jobs since January, 2007. That includes net job growth in the first two months of this year – better than the nation as a whole. And much of the new growth is in sectors, like life sciences, techonology and clean energy, that are central parts of the Governor’s economic development agenda.
Mr Rubin says:
<
p>Bureau of Labor Statistic clearly shows job loss.. Mass Workforce development reports similarly. What am I missing?
Economic development needs to spread well beyond the confines of the Rt. 128 economic area. A more widespread development will enhance the wealth throughout the State, and at the same time relieve the pressure of increasing costs within the current boom region. Recent publications cite the lack of economic growth in the so-called Gateway Cities of the Commonwealth.
Recommendation: Develop a State-wide strategy to reverse this trend and increase the overall strength of the economy in Massachusetts.
<
p>Gateway Cities of Massachusetts Economic Development Strategy
<
p>Background:
There are 11 cities in Massachusetts known as the Gateway Cities, Brockton, Fall River, Fitchburg, Haverhill, Holyoke, Lawrence, Lowell, New Bedford, Pittsfield, Springfield and Worcester. These municipalities are at risk to falling further behind the central city of Boston, according to a MassINC report, as they struggle to attract high-tech and other innovative industries because of shortages of trained workers, limited transportation, and patchy broadband access. The result is a concentration of demand in the central city, with increasingly unaffordable costs in that area, and a lack of economic growth in these second-tier cities.
<
p>Objective:
The objective of this strategy is to define an approach that will allow Massachusetts to better distribute the economic growth within the State, providing more opportunities statewide, while lessening the pressure on real estate prices within the central city.
<
p>Approach:
The recommended approach is to first recognize the unique capabilities inherent in the area of each city, and then to designate an economic development agenda for each locale that is consistent with those capabilities. Each city will be designated as the center-of excellence for the chosen development, and the State and the City will cooperate to achieve successful realization of those objectives. The unique capabilities may derive from the characteristics of the local workforce, its community colleges/universities, the historical character of its industries, or possibly its unique location and transportation qualities.
<
p>The Start:
The first step in the process is to research each area and make specific judgments as to what type of development would be most appropriate for each one. A brief assessment of each city is needed to start the process, demographics, educational initiatives, and existing and historical industries. Each city should offer a summary of those characteristics to the State to establish their turf in this endeavor. Preferred investments are with those activities that would result in a net inflow of wealth to the State, or at least reduce the outflow that currently exists. The designation of UMASS Worcester as a center for Life Science is a major first step in this process.
<
p>Areas of Special Interest:
A difficult step in this process is to identify those activities that will have the most benefit to the Massachusetts economy in 5, 10, 20 years and beyond. We need to have an “encounter with the future” for the insight required to be sure of our plan, but a wise group of people should be able to make a reasonable selection. Maybe that would include: Life Sciences, Nanotechnology, Solar Energy Capture, Wind Energy Capture, Energy Efficiency and Distribution, Defense Electronics and Homeland Security, Finance, Health Care, Land Management and Farming Fisheries, Tourism, etc., and any derivative industries that may result from these.
<
p>Establishing the Centers of Excellence at the Gateway Cities:
With some foresight into the economy of the future and supportable requests from the Gateway Cities, the State can create a roadmap to a distributed economic future for the Commonwealth. Although the concept of centers-of-excellence implies each community will have a unique role, it is likely that multiple centers for certain activities will be defined. That is a positive outcome as long as such distribution of a single activity has solid rationale and does not dilute the efficiency of the expertise. An example of an industry that can easily be distributed to several locations is tourism, but in doing so, it would be wise to link the marketing of these collectively at the State level.
<
p>State and Local Aid to Centers-of-Excellence:
Once the objectives have been defined, the State and each Gateway City have the mutual responsibility to make the plans successful. Some approaches to achieving these successes may be:
1) Education
a. Update curricula at local universities and community colleges for preemptive training of the workforce for new technologies.
b. Provide tuition incentives for designated studies in addition to normal financial aid.
c. Fund research and development of key technologies at State Universities.
2) Infrastructure
a. Facilitate access to designated areas.
b. Improve telecommunication infrastructure in those areas.
c. Coordinate transportation needs among the centers-of-excellence.
3) Tax Incentives
a. Tax Increment Financing for local property taxes where new jobs are created.
b. Supplementary State reimbursement to city for temporary loss of property tax revenue, recognizing the increased State income tax collections being received.
c. R&D Tax Credits to companies participating in the plan.
4) Planning and Development
a. Generate a Marketing Plan for each activity.
b. Manage the plan to make sure activities are consistent with objectives.
c. Expedite local approvals to minimize delays and unnecessary costs, but preserving safety of the local environment.
<
p>Payoff of Successful Plan:
1) The citizens benefit from increased job opportunities as a more appropriately educated workforce.
<
p>2) The localities benefit from a higher standard of living resulting from the ever-increasing property tax base, without the onerous increase in tax rates.
<
p>3) The State benefits from increased revenues derived from the basic individual tax rates due to the increased earning capability of its citizens.
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I think you will find a lot of that thinking within our current efforts around economic development, particularly in the work of Housing and Economic Development Secretary Dan O’Connell and Labor and Workforce Secretary Suzanne Bump. Stay tuned for more announcements in the near future around new ways to spur development in regional economies and better help our gateway cities.
….around the gateway cities to make it feasible.
<
p>see previous Posts
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
I thought that was a candid admission that the hard part will be finding the thing right for each city… Worcester has been collecting money and projects for years from the state but has still declined.
<
p>Hate to be contentious, but I don’t believe it’s up to the state to determine what’s right for these cities. The development if there is any will be done privately and at a speed far beyond the ability or need educational or economic bureaucracy to help.
<
p>I would rather see an examination of the hindrances state taxes and regulations put in the way of new business. My gut feeling is that Massachusetts is a high marginal tax state with breaks for big businesses who have the money to lobby (or bribe) their way into a lower rate. These are not activities that generate growth.
<
p>My one constructive recommendation for these cities would be to pay attention to their visual and environmental appeal even at the cost of new roads and big block buildings that the state will offer.
Thank you so much for taking the time to post here and to respond to other’s posts. I hope that someday you’ll consider yourself more than a ‘visitor’ and realize your a member of an online community, whatever your day job.
<
p>It was clear, from the beginning of your post, that this was more than some ‘form letter’ outreach of the type we might see from politicians from time to time. While I have nothing against form letters, I don’t engage with them. I much prefer interacting with real people.
<
p>My advice to you and to Governor Patrick is to work very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff: here, at BMG, and in the wider world, but especially in the legislature. It’s advice, I’m sure, that’s been given to you before, but I find myself compelled to repeat it yet again. It’s advice that is useful here, when choosing to whom to respond and it’s advice that’s useful when evaluating legislation.
<
p>There are more than a few people here who feel entitled to your undivided attention and who become petulant when The Governors actions don’t conform with their advice. These grumblers are heady with a taste of being enabled without, unfortunately, a wider perspective. However inappropriate their behaviour, they really just want to be a help.
<
p>On the other hand, some here have already run the entitlement curve straight through petulant and are given to casual but mean-spirited sniping. These ravaged souls are the Republicans and/or Conservatives who can’t decide at whom they ought to be angry: the Left, whom they’ve been programmed to dislike or the Right who consistently fail to meet the low expectations they set for themselves…. Unfortunately, between the entitlement and the petulance we often find the bulk of posts here at BMG. I urge you not to be discouraged at this, although I admit that at times it has discouraged me.
<
p>So work hard to winnow the wheat from the chaff: there is good counsel here, and more good intent and the vast majority of the members are earnest and sincere. The same, I daresay, goes for interactions with the legislature.
<
p>The only other advice I have is to continue to work hard. In fact, work even harder. You have the opportunity that almost all desire but few ever get: the chance to spend yourselves in a worthy endeavor.
<
p>Thank you again for posting here.
<
p>
Of course, there are people with good intentions and bad, but it’s also helpful and instructive to listen to those who don’t agree with you to gain insight into their perspective. A governor is the governor to everyone, leftwing or right. Governor Patrick did a great job throughout the early days, in Town Meetings once elected and at campaign events before he was elected, of taking questions from most everyone, answering them as honestly as he could, and of listening. That’s something that has to happen now, as well, because as he used to say, “even Kerry Healey has a few good ideas.” We need the Governor to select issues to organize around and advance that a large majority of the state can come around – health care affordability reform, green energy, transportation expansion and rehabilitation, economic investment throughout the state, etc. To get a significant amount of those things done, we need the grassroots behind it, we need an engaged Governor and we need ten thousand of feet on the ground making it happen – and that only happens through listening and working with the people.
<
p>I don’t know about you, but I don’t equate good intentions with agreement and bad intentions with disagreement… That seems too simplistic by half, doncha think? Perhaps you can take the time to actually read what I wrote, mmkay?
<
p>
While the Bush Administration has done everything possible to avoid addressing the real challenges that global warming is and will cause for Massachusetts and the rest of the world, states like California, Florida, New Jersey and Hawaii have seized the opportunity and led on this important issue.
<
p>The Massachusetts State Senate has passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, which will commit our state to doing what is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, and put the Commonwealth in a position to develop the businesses and technologies that the world will need to move towards a clean energy economy.
<
p>With the bill sitting in the house, the Governor has yet to come out in favor of the bill.
<
p>Solving this problem will take the type of visionary leadership that we all hoped for from this Governor and this administration. They have taken a lot of small steps in the right direction, but the time is now to go beyond small steps and commit to taking the big steps needed to solve this global challenge. I for one hope that the Governor takes this opportunity to show the bold leadership that he promised.
It is clear that the Governor needs a win on his scorecard. Since day one he has been pestered by those who like to distort his actions to somehow blame him for an outcome that in reality he has no control over.
<
p>To help bolster his image and restore public faith in his abilities, and help us remember why we voted for him, I suggest that Governor Patrick lobby the legislature and judiciary committee to enact Senate Bill 994. There is overwhelming public support for this and it is the number one issue on his website and besides that, it really is good for kids.
<
p>And if the legislature once again thinks they know better, it will be very clear to the voters who needs to be sent home at the next election.
<
p>Thanks,
<
p>Trevor
<
p>
I’m a high school educator and an elected member of a large regional school committee. Because many high schools, some more than others, are pursuing the necessary reform outlined by the National Association of Secondary School Principals, there is one issue that is impeding progress and real reform that the state has control over:
<
p>21st Century Skills meets the Mass Curriculum Frameworks
The DOE has adopted 21st Century Skills frameworks but, as you probably already know, 21stCK are in direct conflict with the breadth that is demanded under the Mass Curriculum Frameworks as they are currently configured. This opposition is untenable and is bound to stymie any real progress in moving students forward in preparing them for the global marketplace in which they must compete. What does the Patrick administration (and Paul Reville) plan to do about resolving these issues? Many high schools in the Commonwealth are moving ahead with Breaking Ranks II and the realigned requirements of NEASC, but we are hitting a brick wall when it comes to resolving the incompatibility of 21stCK and the MCF. Progressive middle and elementary schools in the Commonwealth, as well, will be hindered in making any real progress. Educators and administrators who are trying to be responsible and responsive cannot create the classrooms we need when the goals of 21stCK and the MCF are at odds.
<
p>
by cancelling the casino study. We can only assume that if the study is going forward, that a revised casino proposal will also ber forthcoming.
<
p>This does little to reassure us that other ideas will be at the heart of the governor’s agenda and suggests that we will have to fight this further.
One of the bigger attractions of Mr. Patrick’s campaign was his push for property tax relief.
<
p>http://devalpatrick.com/mpa.php
<
p>However, this last budget pretty much flatlined unrestricted local aid. Sure, closing some of the corporate loopholes will help some – but not enough to stop the runaway train of increasing costs faced by the municipalities – like double digit increases in healthcare, new pension obligations, etc. To quote Mr. Patrick – “our cities and towns are in crisis.”
<
p>I’d like to know what people can expect in terms of property tax relief. Mr. Patrick is in his second year of governor…and there isn’t a whole lot in sight, as yet.
England has the highest gas tax in Europe and it is also the most congested. It wasn’t until London intiated congestion procing that they began ro see some reliefs. But thats not my policy suggestion. This is..
<
p>1: Toss out Romney’s long range transportation plan “Journey to 2030” it just told all the players that their projects are in but low balled the cost.
<
p>2: Make your own plan, hold hearing across the state with MASSHIGHWAY, MPO’s and your economic folks. Invite labor, academics and private players to offer white papers on transportation policy. Start a debate
<
p>3: Make it your issue put your muscle behind it with a committment to fund it after your re-elected.
<
p>4: Identify the worst infrastructure and repair it through a transparent capital planning process during this planning period.
<
p>5: Dedicate existing revenue to maintenance and tell the the public they will have to agree on how they want to pay for the plan.
As others have said many times (and please forgive me if I mangle their words) “If we took all the studies about transportation in the state we could use them to repave all of our roads.”
<
p>No need for hearings with MPOs, etc. because what we need right now is to fix the existing yet crumbling infrastructure first. That is a reasonably simple exercise as the state is required (as per state and fed regs) to inspect and report on road & bridge conditions.
<
p>What should happen simultaneously is a serious discussion of how to fund future expansion of mass transit (not just the MBTA but all RTAs) as well as other major infrastructure projects (rebuilding bridges for example.)
Hello,
<
p>1. Cape wind & RGGI – promoting green building practices in both of our urban and rural regions. mandatory recycling in creative and economically favorable mediums. solar.
<
p>2. Health care – costs are rising with our unique health care climate, same as they ever have, and are becoming increasingly unsustainable. this must be investigated and addressed, either with tangible economic results or a marketing campaign to add more sunlight and encourage the fed. or are we just waiting for Bush to leave?
<
p>3. Transportation – something that used to ring in my ears from Deval was his public transportation rhetoric. we need to bring it to life. Boston is very bike-unfriendly, despite its emerald necklace. light rail expansion.
<
p>4. Sustainable planning – Boston needs to be an attractive place to live for all people, and with the constant influx of youth, this means adapting to the new generations faster than some cities. I certainly do not plan to raise my children in the same municipality as a level-4 bio-terror disease research facility. This is just horrible planning, which disenfranchises current residents and discourages future growth. Same goes for the luxury condos, but I’ve yet to dig deep into that fight.
<
p>5. Extra ramblings: Responsible & reasonable taxes, violent crime, MCAS, CORI, phara tap water, green urban spaces and cleaner coastline.
<
p>Thank you and hat’s off to BMG.
There is a painful and enduring disconnect between this Governor, his staff, the people he wants to lead, the legislature, and the issues he framed well in the campaign and continues to frame well with and for Obama. That disconnect implies he’s lying, his staff is incompetent, his followers are deceived, the legislature is deaf and ignorant, or the issues are really much more complex than his – and Obama’s – framing suggests.
<
p>I suspect the issues are real – foreclosures and a real housing crisis, infrastructure collapse, educational miasma, and fiscal chaos – while the Governor is naive, staffed by disconnected or arrogant neophytes, and out of touch with the real pains he’s tried to capture with eloquent phrases. That formulation leaves few – the staff, largely – to blame, and much left to recover, renew, and reformulate. Since Mr. Rubin leads that staff, that could be a problem were it not that he has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to learn from experience. Some of that learning might include:
<
p>* Addressing the housing crisis with a real estate transfer tax, to discourage flipping or foreclosures, to cushion the re-inflation when the market rebounds, and to generate the kind of money it will take to “green” the housing in the state with cost-effective improvements like those documented so conveniently on NOW achieved by the Cambridge Energy Alliance (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/413/index.html). A modest 3% transfer tax should yield plenty to support deeply subsidized energy loans and renew the housing industry at low cost with high paying jobs and exportable technology. The Canadians do much the same, with an 8% transfer tax which would never pass here. Yet the marginal cost of 3% is much more affordable; the net to the state more than enough for such a loan guarantee program; and the net to new and current homeowners – in energy savings as well as jump-started appreciation – much more than the total cost.
<
p>** Addressing the infrastructure collapse with an integrated transportation-telecommunications plan to upgrade the state’s highways with smart car, density priced, mass transit oriented highway improvement. Installing statewide Wi-Fi will (a) double the capacity of all equipped highways to handle much denser driving at relatively low cost; (b) automate parking, tolls, density pricing (for downtown driving and parking), while sharply reducing auto theft, auto accidents and auto insurance; and (c) dramatically reduce internet/phone costs to inner city residents at no cost to local enterprise by leasing access to current providers of cable, satellite, and phone services on Wi-Max or other wireless networks owned by the state and financed by cheaper bonds than any provider ever could negotiate. There’s no reason why we let Verizon (http://www.cwa-legislative.org/fact-sheets/page.jsp?itemID=28379859) push it’s FIOS on a public ignorant of the $5.8 billion accelerated depreciation write-off that pays for an infrastructure improvement they now want to charge that same public lots more to double their profit (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php). Were the state to trump that investment with a wireless mesh network we could achieve lots, lots more with lots, lots less.
<
p>*** Addressing the K-16 educational fog by establishing a student loan forgiveness program to recruit young teachers and increase access to employed adults by partially forgiving loans to mentors and others working with teens in and after school. Given our huge higher education network, this state has every reason to “recycle” college students and recent graduates in inner city education settings, in as many ways as possible at the lowest cost possible, benefiting as many elementary, secondary and even college students as possible. It is absurd to price public postsecondary education out of precisely the market where it serves the most for the least cost. We have the highest density of postsecondary seats of any region on the globe, and the impending decline in enrollment (just demographics) will seriously erode future growth without some policy-driven improvement to anticipate that decline and capture public benefit from current students.
<
p>We will see if Mr. Rubin is more than smoke by his response. None of these are terribly complicated; each have serious outcomes for modest or bondable costs; and, most critically, they are all unique to this state and build on the state’s most valuable assets – smart housing policy, smart transit and communication policy, and a very dense higher ed industry. Building on what you already have can generate lots more of what pays the most to the most people.
I meant to rate your comment a “4” not a “6”.
<
p>Good ideas, better without the gratuitous insults.
Ratings aren’t permanent. You can re-rate just as easily as you rated it the first time.
<
p>2. Implement entitlement eligibility reform. Sure, the Gov has recognized that the underground economy cheats us out of revenue, that’s why he appointed a task force. But with nearly half of all state spending going to entitlement programs where eligibility is based on income, we lose even more money on spending by giving persons in the underground economy benefits they’re not entitled to. Watch for a detailed essay on this subject soon. Maybe in time for the Gov’s economic speech. We’re talking a billion in savings each year without any need for Legislative approval. Simple;
<
p>3. Pension reform. Please, cap the total amount of pension a person can receive each year. Transition Massachusetts from defined benefit to defined contribution. The taxpayers are funding a pension for public employees that’s more generous than anything a taxpayer could ever hope to receive. That’s just wrong and it destroys public trust in government. Are you listening Doug? Simple.
<
p>That’s three. I’ll be listening to the Gov’s economic speech to hear if any ideas make it into the text. There’s more ideas too, but these are a good start and account for $1.5 billion in savings. You asked, but are you listening??
three for three!
Can you elaborate? And what, short of the usual “taxing the rich” drivel, do you propose instead to make up $1.5 billion deficit?
For starters, cigarettes ought to be more expensive, not less. Maybe we could reduce that minimum cost… and tax it an extra dollar on top of that… which may, just may, pay for all the troubles cigarettes cause… but obviously without preventing death, suffering and underage use of those awful things.
<
p>On your second idea, the costs of actually finding all those people in the ‘underground economy’ could negate the net gains IMO. If it doesn’t, though, it will certainly create an atmosphere of fear in society that I find intolerable. Furthermore, I hate policies that single out and target the working poor: why not target the corporate welfare, tax cuts and ways of hiding their money? It would certainly amount to much greater sums, with the added benefit of taking less resources to find it.
<
p>On your last point, pension reform is one of the third rails of politics. We don’t need it. Simply put, the average municipal employer would be paid a higher income if they worked in the private sector. Good benefits is the compromise. I wouldn’t support an attempt to change that formula because it will only result in municipal employers getting bad benefits on top of their often lousy wages.
<
p>There are real solutions to be had in finding more revenue and saving costs. Sniping at the lower to middle class population and trying to tear society apart in the process doesn’t seem like a good strategy, neither is making cancer-causing products even more available to teenagers who’s minds aren’t fully developed yet (and thus don’t understand quite how stupid they’re being). We need a progressive income tax in this state – which you may call “taxing the rich drivel,” but I call “fair.” Hell, even Bush-Reagonomics calls for a somewhat progressive income tax, even if it’s an incredibly lousy version of it. So, I’d like to see Massachusetts progress at least to the level of Bush-Reagonomics. Yet, if we can’t get that far, then we could at least go back to the 5.9% era, or something close to it, which would solve many of our current problems. The fact is this state hasn’t been economically solvent since it cut taxes.
1: Great idea. Cigarettes are artificially priced in the state then taxed. Who do you think buys cigarettes? Poorer people. Isn’t the lefty mantra always railing against regressive tax, then when someone suggest a free-market fix, that deregulates cigarettes, and yields the same or more tax in the process, it’s a bad idea.
<
p>2: Entitlement reform. Google ‘the tax gap’ and you’ll discover that billions are lost to under the table payments, abuse of the EIC system caused by parents claiming to hire children…all sorts of abuses. People are committing crimes, and as a result are gaining extra entitlements or paying less in income tax. Reform is a bad idea?
<
p>3: Pension reform. Hundreds of little pensions plans in the State, many of which are underfunded. The state’s plan is underfunded. No year passes where some politician is not found to have gamed the defined benefit pension system. It’s more generous than any private pension in the state. Reforming it’s a bad idea?
Doug,
<
p>Gov. Patrick got 1.3 million votes. DiMasi got, what, 10k?
<
p>Why does Deval let DiMasi, et. al. push him around like this?
<
p>Does he have no stomach for the fight?
<
p>DiMasi and those Beacon Hill folks are scrappers. They relish mixing it up. Gov. Patrick needs to follow suit ow they will continue to steamroll him on his entire agenda.
<
p>We were sold a bill of goods with Deval, apparently…
Unless, of course, AmeriQuest is a still a higher priority than their victims, pursuing exploitive mortgages through taxes is a much, much more enduring and effective regulatory vehicle than through other kinds of regulation. And it’s a lot, lot easier by state than through Congress. And there are currently no (visible) advocates for the industry in the legislature. If the Governor is really a public official, and not an industrial bureaucrat in disguise, he would address this particular sector as an income source. For example, a foreclosure tax, based on the mortgage value of the property and not at the foreclosure value, would generate lots at no public cost for considerable public good. Real Estate transfer taxes are established – usually at the county level as a 1% fee, but … as Romney proved … a fee is just another word.
<
p>And, while we’re on the subject of cost-savings, why does the Administration abandon the health industry to the medical providers? Very little of that industry targets prevention, yet, prevention is the largest single source of revenue gain earned through a universal health care system. I’ve actually been in meetings where he was briefed on reducing HIV/AIDS by at least 50% – through Pre and Post Exposure Prophyllaxes; universal, low risk, low cost testing; consequent high rates of HIV in treatment; and more aggressive needle exchange in places like Chelsea. At the $400,000 per case from diagnosis to death, estimated at the Harvard conference last year, that would yield more than the current shortfall. The 823 cases last year could be cut in half, saving more than $160,000,000, extended for nearly 20 years as a long term capital gain available to the Commonwealth. Similar – if not larger – savings are available by targeting Diabetes and Krone’s Syndrome, and ONLY available to a universal health care system who’s actuarial costs would plummet in response. He was, after all, in insurance for a while, so why doesn’t he act? Timidity or cupidity is my guess. And if not his, then some of his (remarkably inept) senior staff.
fast enough. The Globe Ran with it…..
<
p>
<
p>I can see zeroing out my comment if I called the Governor a name, or if I was personal. I was neither, it was a pointed jab, a jab yes, but that’s what it was. It was not worse than anything Frank Skeffington aka Festus Garvey does at RMG. Nor worse than anything Jon Stewart does nightly. I think it was zeroed because you like the Globe found truth in it and were scared to see it up there.
<
p>Looks like my analysis was spot on. Have a great day!!!
I like it when big name people join the debate at BMG, and your comment simply served as a taunt. You’re not that interested in Doug Rubin or Deval Patrick doing a better job for the people, nor in them better communicating with the people. You’re interested in electing Republicans, period.
is a big enough boy to take a slight jab. As was once said “politics ain’t beanbag”.
What’s new?
(i) it was indeed a pithy soundbite, and (ii) it is true.
It garnered media attention because the reporter thought it was exactly what he was looking for — evidence of the Governor being “in a bind with his base.” But, of course, the reporter was wrong, because EaBo is not part of Deval’s “base.” (Unless EaBo has switched allegiances.)
<
p>I mean, think about it. If a reporter wanted to find snippy blog comments about the Gov, he could just wander over to RMG or HubPolitics or DevalWatch any day of the week. But they don’t, because that’s not news. Finding such comments on BMG — considered to be the haven of Deval’s “base” — is what’s newsworthy. That’s why EaBo’s comment made it into the paper. But it’s all based on an erroneous assumption about who EaBo voted for.
Eabo’s comments are an accurate reflection of the postings of everyone else here as well. Just because he’s republican, doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
<
p>You guys take this bit of lazy reporting as evidence that the Globe is exaggerating the governor’s predicament. But with, say, thirty seconds more browsing, the reporter could have found a dozen comments from Patrick supporters saying the same thing, and some from active in the 2006 campaign.
<
p>I’m beginning to think that the proprietors have gone ostrich on this. This casiono thing was extremely damaging. The silly things that EB3 points out are icing on the cake.
is Jim Ogonowski. Maybe the third time will be the charm.
…which EaBo and I are on opposite sides of (once again! Who knew?). Visit http://www.jeffbeatty.com
<
p>Full disclosure – to date, Ogo’s ads are WAY better.
A security expert who “supports and prays for success in Iraq”? Oh, well as long as he supports success in Iraq, then we’re good! Why hasn’t anybody supported success in Iraq before?!
<
p>I’ll go for the pilot’s brother, but recognize that he’s a sacraficial lamb to a guy who isn’t all that great a Senator.
<
p>Why haven’t you guys figured out that the national GOP has totally devastated your party? New England Republicans were once a category unto themselves, and, not to put too fine a point on it, actually got elected in general elections, which, in case you haven’t noticed, is something of a rarity these days, at least locally.
<
p>In recent years, your organization has shed these roots and become more closely identified with the national GOP, which development seems to be closely correlated with electoral catastrophe. This may
<
p>Bill Weld understood this; he was elected not in spite of his issues with the national party, but because Jesse Helms hated him. Romney isn’t stupid, and must have known that he was killing Kerry Healy when he decided to morph into Rick Santorum.
<
p>You should not be Republicans, you should be Massachusetts Republicans. Screw the national party, let them keep their money, which doesn’t help anyway, except to the estent that it diverts resources away from some other bible thumping creep. Be not beholden to Karl Rove, or Robert Duncan. Or to post-2004 Romney, either. Find a way to do this without violating the 11th commandment, if need be.
<
p>That is patently false.
Doug,
<
p>Each time I hear something to the effect of “the Readiness Project has not only brought over 100 experts, activists and practitioners in education together to help prepare our children to compete in the global economy, it has also included a number of town hall forums and over 800 “ready rep” volunteers who are connecting these reforms to their local communities. We fully expect that the results will lead to a robust, inclusive conversation about how MA can build upon its success to better prepare our children for the future.”, I lose even more faith in the Governor’s ability to walk the talk.
<
p>There is a very serious credibility gap forming, particularly among those who supported his election. The Governor ran on a platform that he would fix education funding by shifting the tax burden from property taxes to income taxes. Nothing can be farther from the truth as he pushes for limited fixes that do not address pressing needs.
<
p>Project Readiness has not been an open process. Despite numerous requests and even a meeting set up by the Governor for us to meet with his education staff, we were not permitted to speak with the Project Readiness team. Nor was there in fact any way to influence the process by being a “ready rep”. From my perspective, it was all talk and no action.
<
p>Substantively, our local communities are still saddled with Chapter 70. The formula fails to properly measure what is needed for an adequate education and substantially underfunds state education mandates such as special education. In our community alone, we get credit for $1.3MM in special education expenses, when in fact they are $3.3MM or 30% of our education budget. At the same time, we get far less than other communities in CH70 Aid — $1400 per child. The state average is $3900 and our comparable neighbors get over $2300. The reason is the formula is designed to economically discriminate against the less fortunate. Because it uses aggregate income to determine what a community can afford to pay as a whole, we now have to tax many of our seniors and less fortunate residents at rates approaching 25% of their income because we have a few residents with very high incomes. This has forced us to substantially reduce spending in our schools and the quality of our education as we balance economics against the needs of our kids. Our MCAS scores have declined in parallel with this decline in spending. Our spending on regular education has declined on a per child basis since 1993 while our property taxes have increased by more than 2x. We are in my view, the “Canary in the Coalmine” as other communities approach the limit to what they can ethically and economically afford while other communities get the lion share of the state aid.
<
p>The only solution that is fair is to increase the income tax by 0.5% and to mandate that it be shared on a per child basis with every district so that we can cover the essential foundation costs of education with state revenue and end this discriminatory reliance on property taxes. This will add $1B to our state funding and bring MA up to the mean among the other states in the percentage of local school funding coming from the state. We are now 47th in the Country. It will also ensure that the inequities created by Chapter 70 are mitigated while the inequity solved by Chapter 70 in historically underfunded districts continue to be addressed.
<
p>The Governor needs to start walking the talk and actually doing what he campaigned to do. I encourage you to be more transparent and not try to assert accomplishments based on words rather than action and results.
<
p>Bruce Leicher
Looks like you are a fellow School Committee person. I agree completely with your comments. In my district we have cut school spending for the last 5-6 years. We are looking at $1.2M in cuts if an override doesn’t pass.
<
p>Because the town assesses us healthcare costs, it puts us over Foundation Budget. Our Chapter 70 money has gone to the increased healthcare costs over the last several years. We don’t see it in direct services to children. How can we educate our students to be 21st century learners if we have to reduce technology and teachers. Increase class sizes , reduce AP and elective courses, increase user fees, transportation and facility fees, etc.
<
p>Where is the relief? I don’t see that on the horizon.
<
p>I agree with your sentiments.
<
p>Burt Buchman
<
p>Cut school spending for 5 to 6 years? Such a town exists in Massachusetts?
Yes – this year’s budget was level service funded – 1st time we have not had to lay off teachers. But like anything it is a bandage. My community has twice defeated overrides. We were left to cut services.
<
p>This year our town faces a $1.6M deficit.
<
p>You can’t continue to provide the services needed under state and federal mandates without the associated funding. Plus the BOE several weeks ago approved a regional charter school to be established. We’re going to have to provide transportation for our town’s students attending there as well as the town providing police, fire, etc. This was quickly railroaded through the BOE with little notice to us. This makes 4 school systems the town has to support – charter school, public, vocational, and private.
like gary, i’d love some clarification.
<
p>do you “actual cuts” or “spending increases that are lower than what we wanted?”
“Cut headcount” — an increase of 2% in a given year isn’t enough to roll over all your staff, between the unfunded mandates being shoved at us and the health insurance cost increases.
<
p>So layoffs 3 out of the last 4 years. I mean you can say that because the absolute dollar amount being spent went up a smidgen, below core inflation let alone the cost of healthcare increases and NCLB-mandated master’s degree pay raises. But you’d be what economists call “stupid”. If inflation is 4% and you get 2% more money, you have less money in real dollars. Note lack of quotes around “real” because that is the generally accepted use of the term.
<
p>Sounds familiar this town. Hey Burt 🙂
You know your own town’s politics and budgets, of course, better than I, but I always wonder at the perspective of some town educators in these budget processes. BTW,
<
p>Tyngsborough budget info easily available to the public is very opaque–that’s a mistake.
<
p>Look at the total Tyngsborough budget since 2000. It’s grown from $20.9 million to 31.9 million since 2000.
<
p>Since most of that increase is on the backs of residential, is it any wonder that people get upset when they hear town officials talk about crises, and cuts when the budget has climbed so high, so quickly?
And you’re including a debt exclusion to build a school. Which, I suppose, is fair to include, but the date range you pick there makes it look like a bigger increase than it is. Date it from 2003 and you’d just see the 2.5%, less than that actually considering debt exclusions don’t go up. Date it from 90 and that school’s % increase would be spread over twice as long. Take it to next year and a big debt exclusion coming off the tax bill will actually make our budget drop. 2000 was also, I believe, the one year that Tyngsboro didn’t levy to our Prop 2 1/2 cap because that was back when the state gave us decent aid, so that year’s artificially low — I could be wrong there but it would explain the low levy that year.
<
p>The operational budget’s gone up by its strict 2.5% every year, and 2.5% as I said doesn’t even keep up with core inflation, let alone the items that make up the bulk of muni spending (salaries, health insurance, pensions, gas, electricity). The items in the economy that haven’t been going up in price, like flat screen monitors, we don’t buy much of.
<
p>That’s the point I’m making.. there are local details everywhere however when you look at the 2.5% cap, stagnant state aid and the cost inflation of the things that towns do, we’re all basically going to crap. Chelmsford’s override failed yesterday, they’ll be shutting down a whole school. Westford’s failed a couple years ago and they laid off a bunch of teachers. This isn’t just a case of one given town, it’s the facts of life that our funding sources can’t keep up with what it costs to provide the services we are mandated to provide. Hence layoffs, increasing classroom sizes, etc.
<
p>I understand that normal people face a lot of these problems, too. However, nobody bats an eye at their comcast cable bill going up 8% year to year, but their prop taxes going up, say, at the same rate as inflation would be highway robbery. Just makes me wonder about priorities sometimes.. meanwhile look at the federal budget, heh. I’m usually more of an optimist but given that we’re facing significant teacher layoffs this spring, I’m a bit down about it.
<
p>Dating it from 2003, and inflating the TOTAL town budget using CPI means the 2008 budget should be $30.56. And, I see that Local-Aid to the town has been level for the past several years.
<
p>But, if you go to the school committee, you’ll see step increases that have been negotiated in excess of 2.5%.
<
p>Does it take a math teacher to know that if revenues are limited to 2.5% that giving a raise in excess of 2.5% will eventually lead to a deficit?
<
p>Maybe it not ‘fair’ that the town/school faces a deficit and a layoff but didn’t anyone see it coming?
<
p>So, now what, two choices, right? One, layoffs and/or cuts. Or two, hat in hand to the 2 1/2 override voters to explain why the Town was compelled to give higher salaries and pay more health care to its employees.
<
p>Hope the vote is sympathetic.
On doing just that this year. Political climate in town is such that it will fail miserably if we do put it forward, so doesn’t much matter.
<
p>As Burt said below, we give low raises and we’ve even managed to negotiate our healthcare contribution rates down. But what job on earth have you heard of where it’s literally impossible to get more than a 2.5% raise. “Oh, you busted your butt and got a masters at night over the last 2 years? 2.5% raise.” Take the healthcare cost inflation, which we don’t control at all, out of that 2.5% and you wind up with even less than a 2.5% raise.
<
p>Everyone’s saying “Oh, live within your means.” We are, we’ll be laying off a whole bunch of teachers to make everyone happy while the baby boomer generation hands us 8 trillion in federal debt and an empty SS trust fund. This is pretty much the fall of Rome we’re looking at, here — Oh I refuse to increase my taxes to educate my community’s kids but I pay that comcast high-def bill on time and in full every month.
<
p>And I appreciate your thoroughness and honesty in looking at the numbers, I really do, but “compelled to pay a living wage and provide healthcare to our employees”, yeah, don’t really feel too bad about that myself. My job’s easier than teaching, doesn’t even require a master’s degree and I do way better than they do for pay. You probably do, too, on all counts. I’m a Selectman, not School Committee so I had nothing to do with negotiating the contract but what are they supposed to do, tell all the teachers to go screw? We pay less than 80% of comparably sized towns within a 2-3 town radius of us, what else are we supposed to do. Teachers don’t “owe” it to us to work for a lousy wage and it’s BS that everyone gets on their moral high horse about “live within your means” while these public servants bust their butts for them.
<
p>So, yeah, you can go “Oh you shouldn’t have given out any raises over the last 6 years, obv the system wasn’t set up to give you enough money to make it affordable, duh, silly”, and you’re right from a mathematical standpoint. But something’s wrong, here.
<
p>Sorry, but cry me a river. I’m no big fan of laying anyone off, but, you know better than I, that Tyngsboro doesn’t have a track record of voting overrides. So, what choice do you have?
<
p>If 2.5% raise or less isn’t sufficient, then they’ll quit anyway. You also know better than I that Tyngsboro teachers, for some reason, tend to not quit. Dedication, intransigence, stubborness, or contentment with their pay, there’s have a high retention rate–particularly among the veterans.
<
p>I’m currently doing some parttime teacher at a state-of-the-art high school. Cripes, electronic blackboard, projectors, computer labs, internet. A few students are lousy, a few are great, most are average. I attended a really poor high school. A few students were lousy, a few were great, most were average. I think the interconnnect between state educational spending beyond a minimum level and the eventual effect on the graduate is vague at best. Or, to quote EBIII, give the teachers in Wellesley a piece of chalk, a blackboard and a tent, and they’ll still outperform kids from Roxbury.
<
p>
I’m just saying that it’s not right and eventually this system will break down. Project it forward 10 years or so — it NEEDS fixing. We can’t just treat our teachers and police, the fundamental pillars of our society, like crap and then accuse them of being greedy if they want a raise that’s in line with their qualifications and value to society. I’m sick of conservatives acting like they’re dynamic free-marketeers for being against paying their taxes while they act entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor. That’s basically it, I guess.
<
p>I don’t think the prop tax is the answer either, it makes middle class people pay a higher % of their income than the rich, I don’t think that’s fair. But we’ve gotta find some way to pay for this stuff, I mean, christ, we’re handing out 100 billion dollar contracts to defense contractors like they’re candy and we can’t take care of the most fundamental aspects of our society? Wtf is wrong with us.
<
p>In the case of Tyngsboro, it’s a stretch to blame it on the conservative. Cripes, 65% of the Town is democrat and votes democrat.
<
p>I am quite fiscally conservative, and don’t think for a second that teachers or police are greedy. I do however, see that sentiment coming from Patrick minions with respect to the police detail pay. Irony really. What’s next after demonizing the greedy policy, greedy teachers? It’s not the conservatives throwing the punches on that issue. Look around.
<
p>Teachers, police as individuals are no more greedy than you or I. Greedy Unions, yes, it’s the job of the institution. Greedy teachers, police, no. There’s a difference.
<
p>A ten year plan with fixed spending increases at 3% or 3.25% would have worked over the past 10 years. Seems the solution is to cut now, lament the job loss, and enact that policy going forward.
How do you know so many stats about Tyngsboro, you local? We did, I’ll note, vote 50.5% Bush in 04 and vote to eliminate the income tax (!!!) in whichever year that was. Which is ridiculous.
<
p>I don’t blame average people, average people have a tough budget situation and property taxes are indeed hard to pay because they don’t come straight out of your paycheck. I’m blaming this ridiculous system we’ve set up. And I have a big problem with this “small government” ideology that is applied to things we need (teachers, police) while big defense contractors get no oversight whatsoever or you hate the troops or whatever. I know people who work for Raytheon — we should liquidate at least half of that company because it’s not doing a damned thing and paying people WAY more than any teacher or cop ever dreamed of being paid. But we hear this “free market” BS over 3 cable stations a night and 5 talk radio stations, as if those of us who want people to pull their weight are trying to collectivize farming or something, and people will believe it, hey, those jerks are just trying to take my tax money and then telling me I’m the jerk for laying off teachers. Screw them!
I just have a LOT of statistics from everywhere. And, I feel your pain. But, as I see towns spend on a 4.0% rate, with good intentions, against a 3.2 or 3.8 trend, I see a trainwreck coming.
<
p>I have sat in town meetings as Selectmen and School Committees vote for a 3.5% raise, praising the work of town employees, yet historically facing revenue growth of 3.4%. Tyngsboro is just an example.
<
p>Look at Newton, as another example. They bought the Taj Mahal High school on the promise of 3.8% revenue growth, then doubled the cost. They passed an override. But, run the numbers out. There are many more overrides in the forecast. Can’t Selectmen see this? Where’s the green eyeshades when you need them?
<
p>Me local? Nah, I am legion; I am many. I can’t even figure out how to pronounce Tyngsboro. (Tinks boro? Tie nighs boro?)
<
p>Newton hasn’t passed the latest override – yet. And it’s 50/50 right now that the thing passes. If it’s odds are that good. The school complicates matters, but the bill won’t start being paid until at least FY10, which means the coming override isn’t even designed to address that cost, but rather to cover the budget gap in the operating budget which was created largely by increased costs in pension, health and energy, and a corresponding drop-off in state money. Add to that the seriously bad PR the city is getting about the school and it looks as though the city doesn’t know how to live within its means.
Just like it looks, after the late great Colonel Tyng of the French and Indian War. I believe we had more casualties from that war than from WWII — heck of a statistic.
<
p>As far as the green eyeshades — it used to be that state aid made up for the fact that Prop 2 1/2 is completely unsustainable on it’s own. Even after the big cuts in FY02 (or was it 03), a lot of people expected that the state would have to come through eventually, because.. they have to, right? Instead, when you factor in inflation we’re not even where we were in 02 on state aid, let alone up by enough to make up for Prop 2 1/2. Nobody was talking about how blind local officials were in the late 90s. I mean, if I had perfect foresight I would’ve not put money into the stockmarket in August last year.
spending increases that fall below inflation are, in fact, cuts — but spending increases that are above inflation are, in fact, increases?
<
p>i’m with you there.
<
p>Boston proposed 4.2% more spending for next year. (Shrinking enrollment).
<
p>They wanted 8%.
<
p>Menino called 4.2% “drastic cuts.” Mostly b/c they’d signed labor agreements more in the 7% raise range (combining the step increases and the cost-of-living increases).
<
p>So setting aside your town, since 4% > any CPI type number we might use, would you say he is wrong to use the word cut in that situation?
Reading some background, it appears a Charter is sited near Tyngsborough. Seems to meeting with the same enthusiasm as a casino.
And it’s gonna hurt us, too, cause of the silly way those laws are written. We have to pay them more in tuition for every Tyngsboro kid that goes there than it would cost us per head to educate them — mandate. We have to provide policing, trash pickup, bussing (seriously?!), etc, mandate. And we don’t get any prop tax revenue from the site.
<
p>The problem here is that the legislature just passes these problems downward and the local officials who have to deal with the affects don’t have any ability to fix them. Heck, if every Tyngsboro kid went there our budget would prob be in the negative. So a few will go there, draining a bunch of money from our system and leaving less for the rest, setting off the chain reaction, why exactly? Have they proved they’re better?
A 7% raise isn’t a 7% raise. For example, when UMASS Dartmouth employees weren’t paid a raise in 6 or 7 years, just giving them the rate of inflation on top of their current salaries would have still represented a pay cut in real terms for most professors there. That’s when a hefty raise is necessary, even if in the headlines it may look like they’re getting a gigantic raise…. they’re not.
<
p>So I don’t know what happened in Boston, but I’m guessing that the 7% raise isn’t really a 7% raise…
I agree with you that sometimes the 7% isn’t 7%….
<
p>But in this case….
<
p>Listen, per-pupil spending in Boston has risen from $6400 in 1994 (the year after Ed Reform was passed) to $14,000 in 2008. That’s 119%, or roughly 8% per year. That outpaces inflation by quite a bit.
<
p>BPS teacher average salary used to be around the state average, now higher than every community in MA, more than Newton, Weston, Wayland, Wellesley.
<
p>Let’s say this year you’re a 3rd year teacher, master’s degree, in BPS. This year, $54,530. Next year $59,606. That’s 9% raise. I’m not cherry picking — most of the bumps are that size. Year after, 2009-10, you’d be at $65,610. That’s 10%.
<
p>The smallest increases are for those past the 10th year of service. But those teachers often then learn to move “horizontally” on the scale by signing up for hours of training.
I suspect that he meant everything other than the health care costs for the teachers.
<
p>If the town has $100 to spend on education, and $2 of that goes to the town’s contribution to the health insurance for teachers and other school employees, and the $2 increases to $8 while the money available to spend goes from $100 to $103, the extra $3 has to come from cutting something else.
<
p>So, they increase school spending, but spend less of it on school spending.
There exists a town where ‘school spending’ with or without health care costs, has gone down over the past 5 years. Which town? I’m not buyin’ it.
We led the way in new contracts with our unions. Naturally the teachers are the largest union in town. Our unions agreed to 80(town)/20 (employee) split for this year. 77.5(town)/27.5 split for 2008- 2009 and 75(town)/25 (employee) split for 2009 – 2010. New employees are at a 70/30 split. Our unions came to bat to work with us regarding those costs. Tyngsboro is part of a health collaborative. The plans available there are at a 4 – 9% cost increase for next year.
<
p>Burt Buchman
In 1993, in the Town of Harvard we spend $5913 per child in the schools in regular education. In 2008 we spent $5793 per child in the schools despite seeing taxes rise from about $3213 per family in 1993 to $8057 and an override just failed to maintain level services in regular education that would have increased taxes to $8800 per family. This is how we are paying more and spending less.
<
p>Why? More kids, inflation, health insurance and and the Governor’s failure to fix Chapter 70. Chapter 70 is set up to arbitrarily allocated state aid to communities with powerful legislators who claim it is fair. Why is it that seniors in Harvard have to pay 25% of their income in property tax to stay in their homes when similarly situated seniors in other communities receiving adequate state aid don’t?
<
p>I did a calculation.
<
p>1993 Avg. Family Tax Bill: $3113
(plus inflation) $1500
(plus 450 kids) $2500
(plus state underfunded special ed) $2700
Total $9813
<
p>What this means is for us to feed our kids the same level of education services today as we did in the good old days we would need to increase taxes to $9813 per family and with our overrides we only feed them $8057.
<
p>That is why I concluded we serve less today per child than we did in 1993.
<
p>How many of us eat less today than we did in 1993?
<
p>Bruce Leicher
Hi Bruce,
<
p>I went to the DOE website. They have “Day Expenditures” of all school districts from 1995 to 2005. Then they changed how they do calculations.
<
p>In 1995, Harvard spent $6050 per kid.
<
p>in 2005, Harvard spent $7800 per kid.
<
p>That’s 30% more over 10 years.
<
p>Above you suggest 0% more over 15 years.
Please read my post carefully. I am comparing only spend on “regular education”. I simply went to town budgets and divided the spend in the schools by the number of kids in the schools. When you have a small town with only 800 to 1300 kids, special education can vary by very large swings from year to year. The allocation of kids accross the state with special education needs is arbitrary by definition, and since reimbursement for services is mandated by state and federal law, it can’t be controlled beyond effective management. Our recent audit of the program indicates we actually spend less per child than most communities on special ed.
<
p> What is clear is that if we continue to spend less on education on teaching the majority of our kids, we will lose our public schools as parents give up. If you examine California, where they have 10 more years than MA of “controlling education costs” and even have a higher level of state funding of local schools, their schools have steadily and significantly declined in quality, and the number of kids in private schools has increased substantially. If we want to follow their path, then lets keep doing what we are doing. I think we’d all be better off if we changed the system to allocate more of the tax burden to those who can best afford it.
<
p>Do we want our schools to be like the frog who jumped in the pot of water on the fire when the water was cold, only to realize too late that the pot was getting warm?
If you then assume that we are spending a greater portion of our budget on health insurance, then by definition, we are serving up even less teaching per child and more insurance
Just a parent who believes the politicians are uninterested in fixing the problem. MA is 47th in the United States in state funding of local schools as a percentage of income, and as a result of excessive reliance on property taxes to make up the difference engages in economic cleansing of our senior community or alternative reducing services in our schools or both.
<
p>I encourage everyone to go visit devalpatrick.com and vote on the Issues under the Chapter 70 Coalition to make your voices heard.
The promise of the campaign has not lived up to the reality of governing. I was an early supporter of the Governor and am a local elected official. I also have the perspective of being unemployed for the last 8 months when the company I worked for was sold and positions were terminated.
<
p>In the last year, we have seen the infighting between the Speaker and the Governor. Initiatives stalled in committees. It’s time for action. We’ve had enough rhetoric.
<
p>Cities and towns are suffering. Overrides are proposed and few get voted in due to the economic climate. Proposition 2 1/2 needs to be repealed. Also healthcare costs are increasing. More incentive is needed on the GIC proposal. Towns are being strangled. Basically the state has told us we are on our own. State and federal mandates persist with no funding attached to them. It’s time for our legislators and administration to have the COURAGE to take this issue on.
<
p>I don’t begrudge the Governor on his book deal. It’s that he left the state to do this during the time of a crucial vote. Even though the casino legislation did not pass, he should have been here! How many more faux paus do we need. At this point – he’s looking like a one term governor, not the candidate of hope and action that I expected.
<
p>Time for a reality check at the State House. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Doug Rubin offers us a little balm but is it really too much barm?
<
p>First, there is absolutely no acknowledgment that what Governor Patrick did was inappropriate. Maybe it is not Rubin’s place (or even function) to apologize for the governor and maybe he even advised the governor to apologize. We will never know, presumably, since all Rubin offers, rather ungrammatically, in today’s Globe is, “Any advice between the governor and I will stay between the governor and I[.]” The most Rubin will grant is that “[s]ome people look at it as a misstep; I get that[.]” Well, that’s certainly governing in prose.
<
p>Second, from the start casino gambling was not, presumably, for the love of casino gambling per se. It was about enhancing revenue. Patrick has talked a lot about either relying on bad revenue streams (e.g. the property tax) or needing new revenue. But he was not here in Boston right after the House vote on casino gambling to remind the people of the Commonwealth that ending discussion about casino gambling just brings up with all the more force the question of needed new revenue. I cannot agree with some commenters that this just does not matter. It does, deeply. It’s not just of a piece with the Cadillac and the drapes, unfortunately–it extends and refines the pattern. After all, the Cadillac and the drapes were just dumb, greenhorn, and narcissistic. The book deal is greedy and cowardly. When we needed the governor to remind everyone that defeating casino gambling just makes finding new revenues all the more critical, he was off in New York enhancing his own revenues. And while he was in New York some of his supporters were taking heat in the House. Doubtless they will take more heat in the future, and their constituents may suffer. But instead of hanging together, at least rhetorically, at least that day, he let them all hang separately. Symbols matter. Standing up timely matters. When the self-styled agent of change makes himself a laughingstock, it matters by devaluing the very message of change.
<
p>Third, we get lots of claims about what the administration has done for us already as if we are simply carping whinebags to expect our governor to finish fights he starts. And plainly things have been accomplished. But is the list so stellar? It’s not clear what Patrick contributed on the final gay marriage vote beyond what the polls already clearly showed. The health care law was there for any governor to implement but the initiative was hardly Patrick’s. And he has done virtually nothing to reverse the let’s-keep-those-hogs-slopped philosophy underlying the health care deal–a failure which, budgetwise, may dwarf anything else he has failed to do so far, or might fail to do in the rest of his term. The proposed billion-dollar handout to the biotech industry is just dumb, which does not mean the legislature will not go along. The auto insurance reform is a good kiss-the-suburbanites initiative, and in fairness Massachusetts’ system was out of step with what all other states did, but not everyone thinks it is that great, particularly urban drivers, and the system is just getting started, not yet successful. Putting good people in office is not enough, though some of the people are impressive indeed.
<
p>We must all move on, to be sure. But certain fundamentals move on too, including figuring out new revenues to do all the things most of the people who supported Patrick thought needed to be done. Without those revenues we are just rearranging the deck chairs, as certain budget-busters, however indispensable (like health care), inexorably grow. We need a full-time, indeed an overtime, governor. Otherwise his memoirs will recount high hopes dashed. We do need fundamental change in the way we do business in this state, but so far there has been far more talk about it than accomplishment.
<
p>Maxdaddy
but agree he missed an opportunity to turn the casino defeat more to his advantage if he had been there when it went down.
<
p>Patrick got the House to back a good bit of his corporate tax proposals and they proposed a hike in tobacco taxes. I think the pressure he brought to bear by driving revenues and putting casino money in his budget maybe forced their hand on this. Is it enough? Likely no. But is it progress by Patrick – yes. He brought issues to the table and forced the debate on revenues and has something to show for it.
Brother, you ought to have been there…
<
p>
It seems to me that the base that the Governor should be reaching out to is his base in the legislature. If he’s lost them, he can’t get anything passed. With a powerful speaker, choosing between the speaker and a Governor who is too stubborn to reach out to them is going to mean a lot of reps going with the speaker.
Governor Patrick must advance policies that are in keeping with his stated values, after all , those are what inspired so many of us to vote for him and to urge others to do so as well.
<
p>We need health care reform that puts people before profits.
<
p>We need health care reform that puts fiscal stewardship of our tax dollars before insurance company control of our helath care system that is ridiculously fragmented, dysfunctional, costly and inequitable.
<
p>Even though the individual mandate law, a “landmark policy” that forces people to buy costly inadequate insurance was not the “Governor’s agenda”, he has the authority and the moral responsibility to stop the mandate penalties. The penalty can reach up to $1,000 a year soley for being uninsured.
<
p>The planned individual mandate fines will punish moderate income residents who are struggling to pay their bills and not lose their homes.
<
p>Please let the Governor know there is broad and enthusastic support in the state for health reform to create a social insurance program where everyone pays in and everyone is guaranteed comprehensive care.
<
p>To learn more go to http://www.Masscare.org/about
<
p>Thank you, Ann Malone, RN, MSN, Community health nurse, Nursing Faculty at UMass Boston and MGH Institute of Health Professions.
Thanks Mr. Rubin for starting the conversation.
<
p>Grassroots Environmental Policy
The Governor’s team contains a lot of talent, but to an outsider I sometimes get the impression that they only have time to listen to those with connetions. I would encourage the Patrick administration to take a much more grassroots approach when it comes to gathering ideas in areas such as environmental policy. The Governor’s environmental team has talked about combatting global warming, but they have not taken the opportunity to reduce coal burning power when they had the chance.
<
p>Affordable Housing
The towns are so deathly afraid of the cost of educating children that they keep pushing for over 55 housing, but what the state really needs to remain economically competitive is under 35 housing. The departure of young adults is a grave threat to the economic wellbeing of the Commonwealth and policy should start to focus a little more on this group.
<
p>Education
The mechanism for funding education is grinding to a halt. Consolidating health care spending might help. The state should also use whatever means it has to encourage communities to regionalize. In some cases snobbery and a fear that test scores and property values might drop is the real obstacle to creating more rationally organized school districts.
<
p>Examples of Reform
A few very concrete and visible examples of thrift and reform would go a long way. Please do not give way to pressure on the police details? The citizens of the Commonwealth will overwhelmingly support action to curb the use of police details.
There is very little Patrick can do to be a success if the national economy is a wreck.
<
p>60% of subprime foreclosures were caused by loss of a job, not interest-rate resets. Yet all we hear about is the bad bankers and the foolish/stupid borrowers.
<
p>Why did these people lose their jobs? Because the Fed raised rates 8 times over 2005-2006.
<
p>Why did the Fed raise rates? To increase unemployment.
<
p>That’s where the problem is. Pass this on to Obama and he will get the economy going in the right direction, and get elected. Then Patrick will have more money to play with. Otherwise you’re just spinning your wheels.
<
p>
Although I wouldn’t attribute the job loss to the Fed rate increases. Yes, they may have made a difference, but the recent rates at their highest were consistent with historical averages. Other factors depress the economy, which make it more sensitive to the rate increases. Wasting $10.3B per month in Iraq is the prime driver, and that direct spending is only the tip of the financial liability iceberg brought on by this mistake. Tax policy and Health Care funding that penalizes US work is driving too much of our wealth-earning activities offshore. Not only has our federal debt exceeded $9T, but our Trade Deficit has reached $6T and is increasing at an even faster rate, over $700B in just the past year, despite historical lows for the dollar.
<
p>Yes, we need big fixes for our national economy, but that will not be enough. Massachusetts has to make some wise choices of its own. Let’s hope the Governor’s plan to be released next week gets that ball rolling.
I feel a great deal of pride when I read lists of the governor’s achievements like the one posted by my friend and colleague Doug Rubin. I felt the same pride when the governor addresses my Chamber of Commerce recently and recited many of the same achievements.
<
p>Would that the rest of the Commonwealth could catch on and discover the good stuff coming out of Beacon Hill. But – perhaps because of the press’s preoccupation with the negative – the public has a deep-rooted (by now) emotional impression of the governor as inexperienced and making mistake after mistake. I say “emotional” because it defies logic; no amount of “look what we’ve done” lists or press releases will counter that impression. In fact, these boastings will tend to look like “yeah, but…” claims to counter the inexperience and error-prone impression.
<
p>As Democrats (and, in particular, as Democrats in charge of the Commonwealth), we must get away from offering cold statistics and lists of achievements with which most of the electorate (and all of the press) do not indentify. Instead, we need to move towards making our case in the gut; going beyond the cognitive and into the intuitive, the feelings of the citizens. We need to change their hearts; their minds will follow.
<
p>For example, if we launched an aggressive attack on the power-play system employed by Speaker DeMasi (and virtually all of his predecessors), which leads him to go after a member of his own party and seek to discredit him, we may be able to change the set of emotions stimulated by our failures from chuckling to indignation. How dare the speaker undermine the governor and jeopardize our losing the corner office to a Republican in 2010! Let’s at least get our own base back on our side.
<
p>Making nice with DeMasi is not going to get the public on our side. It will only make us look weaker. Discrediting DeMasi by exposing the politics-as-usual tactics he uses can have the effect of getting more people to stand up and say “YEAH!”
<
p>Steve Fradkin
I thought that was a candid admission that the hard part will be finding the thing right for each city… Worcester has been collecting money and projects for years from the state but has still declined.
<
p>Hate to be contentious, but I don’t believe it’s up to the state to determine what’s right for these cities. The development if there is any will be done privately and at a speed far beyond the ability or need educational or economic bureaucracy to help.
<
p>I would rather see an examination of the hindrances state taxes and regulations put in the way of new business. My gut feeling is that Massachusetts is a high marginal tax state with breaks for big businesses who have the money to lobby (or bribe) their way into a lower rate. These are not activities that generate growth.
<
p>My one constructive recommendation for these cities would be to pay attention to their visual and environmental appeal even at the cost of new roads and big block buildings that the state will offer.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…