Bridge repair plan will fatten state payroll/Patronage jobs could live on long after work is done
Not exactly the kind of headline that helps to build the public’s confidence in one of the government’s best understood jobs: repairing our public’s infrastructure. Actually a very informative balanced article full of smart quotes from Secretary Bernie Cohen and appropriate cautionary words from Mike Widmer.
BOSTON — The Patrick administration boasts that its ambitious eight-year, $3 billion bridge repair program will fix crumbling bridges and stimulate the economy, creating thousands of jobs…………..
“I don't think we're going down the road to create a permanent, large state work force,” Cohen said. “This is a program where we're going to have to ramp up and then close it down.”
The in-house hiring is necessary, Cohen said, to avoid the problems of the Big Dig, which was overseen by consultants who didn't work for the state. The $15 billion highway project was plagued with cost overruns and lengthy delays.
“We don't want to turn this program over to consultants,” Cohen said.
crossposted at ONE Massachusetts
that so offends the Eagle Trib. What a perverse way to describe this. Its articles like that that make you really wonder about media priorities.
<
p>And implying that these hires are patronage hires is flat out wrong to assume. It implies that Cohen and Patrick will be hiring their buddies and family members.
<
p>Using state workers and hiring more of them does not make it patronage if they are hired fairly and without bias. If the state has needs then they should be met.
<
p>A new headline – I don’t think the story justifies one.
This is afterall: massachusetts
70% increase in the governors staffing budget.
<
p>Perhaps it will be folly—but there are a whole lotta folks fanning the fires of eradication of the state income tax. Just keep giving more ammunition to the folks at CLT.
I can just here the stunned silence after the November elections.
Nominated on ONE Massachusetts too.
…but I will say this much.
<
p>What engineer in his/her right mind would take a 25% +/- cut in pay to work for MassHighway for 5 – 8 years – and then go off into the sunset without any of the side benefits (current estimated value – @ $20,000/yr) of 15% health insurance, pension, etc.? In fact, work 8 years, and one 3 year term as selectman and – poof! – you’re vested, bay-bee!
<
p>Ramp it up, close it down, and pay bennies forever. The consultants may just have been cheaper – at least we had a gross figure for them raping us, and created employment in the dreaded private sector – office rents, more good clerical jobs to prop up unemployment and workers comp pools, which the state self-insures…and so on.
you can skip the part about the benefits of being raped.
The AG’s office—although crawling with lawyers who are essentially doing nothing other than taking up space and having weight—-the AG hires scores of lawyers as CONSULTANTS.
<
p>The Mass Dept of Transportation, although having scores of employees that are allegedly at least well versed in transportation issues hires scores of CONSULTANTS.
<
p>The Mass DPW or whatever they call it now, although having a myriad of engineers on the staff hires HUNDREDS of consulting engineers every year.
<
p>Point being: Is there anyone on the state payroll that knows anything about the day to day tasks for which they were originally hired? Especially the lawyers in the AG’s office. Of cours every Dept in the state, sub unit, and sub, sub unit has their own legal department as well. I would venture to guess that folks here would be amazed at the number of lawyers (competent or otherwise) who are on the state payroll. What competent attorney wants to work for the state anyway when they could make 150K on the outside (read dreaded private sector)?
This is what happens when you don’t.
<
p>Big Dig Culture, anyone?
PP,
<
p>Aren’t you a MassHighway employee?
After all, if we hire “half” the staff, it’d take us 16. And, during that time, more currently acceptable infrastructure would need work, taking on another few years to the 16.
<
p>I’m not suggesting we ignore any problems that are dire, but I do wonder if we reduced the number of hires and therefore needed to keep them longer, wouldn’t that reduce our total exposure to pension problems, etc?
What do I know about the ratio between postponing construction and increased cost. Except what I read about Newton High School. Maybe MMe Porcupine knows.
<
p>ottodelupe(I really like the handle) in the comment below says the LET, and I think too many of us
<
p>How about a headline that says
<
p>Administration plans to minimize construction costs with strengthened public oversight.
.. is always going up these days. Economic growth in other parts of the world (particularly China) is driving up the cost of steel. Delaying a job in this market is almost a guarantee to make it more expensive overall.
the sooner we have to re-do it.
<
p>The argument that materials costs is going up doesn’t seem to hold water. I mean, a pair of pants is going to cost more next year than this year, but that’s no reason for me to throw out all my pants and buy new.
<
p>I do understand about the increasing cost of ongoing maintenance, but that’s not your claim. Your claim is to buy now even if there’s serviceable life remaining because the cost of steel will be higher next year. I don’t buy it.
I didn’t mention the increasing costs of ongoing maintenance, but that’s the other side of the coin then isn’t it? I’m not making claims one way or another… someone asked about why people might want to front-load a budget and rising materials costs is an answer. The particulars about weighing trade-offs like maintenance budgets for old vs rehabilitated vs new infrastructure are for others to ponder. Materials costs are rising and that’s just a fact. How that fact fits in the puzzle of other facts to form a picture that can guide you on how much to spend and when is beyond the scope of the original question.
<
p>Anecdotally, I know that for the new bridge in Lowell the price of waiting resulted in quite an amount of sticker shock. I’m sure the story is similar for other projects that were put on hold in the recent past in comparing new vs. old cost estimates.
LET will cut off their nose to spite their face, as the saying goes. Editorially, they will always look to save a dime now at the expense of spending a dollar in a couple years. And then bitch & moan about having to spend the dollar. They have no sense about paying early when it’s cheaper.
this could turn into a gravy train (and if your eyes still sparkle w/ idealistic fervor, maybe you haven’t lived here long enough).
Possible alternative headline:
<
p>Patrick sycophants gush as his administration announces new spending
<
p>Well our population may be shrinking but at least there are more state employees
<
p>But honey, I’m really saving us money if I buy extra clothes today. They’re on sale and they’ll be more expensive in the future