The problem with tossing bombs is that sometimes they can go off in your hand!
In reference to all the yelling from the mountain tops about the governor’s reform agenda and the apparent lack of the legislature’s action upon it – I read Senate Pres Murray’s SHNS comment today – the truth it seems as stated by her honor is that the Governor has not yet filed a Pension Reform bill for consideration and the legislature took the initiative and crafted their own and furthermore the Senate went forward with their own Transporation Reform legislation because the Governor had not yet filed a bill when they had announced their own plan.
From SHNS: Murray noted that Patrick “never filed a pension bill” and that officials from his transportation department were actively collaborating with lawmakers on a compromise transportation bill.
And Byron Rushing a leading progressive in the House and ardent Patrick backer seemed more than dismayed
From SHNS: One of DeLeo’s floor leaders, Rep. Byron Rushing, ripped Patrick as “disingenuous” and questioned the governor’s understanding of the legislative process, part of the backlash against Patrick’s criticism of the Legislature.
“The feeling is that we are working real hard for reform, we agree that reform has to happen,” Rushing told the News Service. “It certainly is surprising that he doesn’t recognize how the process works up here.”
The South End Democrat said Patrick’s letter on Monday chiding legislators failed to recognize that reforms were progressing at the same time as revenues.
“It was just disingenuous to be telling us that we had to have all of the reforms in this Legislature done before we started working on some kind of tax or revenue,” Rushing said. “The letter was illogical.”
Asked about DeLeo’s reaction to Patrick’s maneuvers, Rushing replied, “The speaker, I think, is surprised, that in all of their conversations, that the governor is expressing ignorance to the Democratic process that you have in the Legislature.”
Tthat is strong stuff from one of your supporters and an unquestioned progressive.
What is the corner office’s strategy here – as I stated in previous posts and comments I do not think there is one – you cannot attack your own party’s legislative leaders and expect to get things done. It is politics and Massachusetts politics at that!
How long have the reforms listed below been needed? Did they just become obvious a coupe of months ago? Where was the leadership in the legislature on these reforms in the past?
<
p>
<
p>We all (including the Governor) know how the process works – it doesn’t unless someone is willing to step up and push for it. That is what the Gov is doing.
<
p>1. MBTA. First, align the MBTA pension system with the best elements of the state pension system.
<
p>2. Second, limit the definition of “regular compensation” to wages and salary for the purposes of calculating annual benefits.
<
p>3. End the “one day, one-year” provision, by which some public employees receive an entire year of pension credit for as little as one day of work.
<
p>4. Eliminate the provisions that allow employees to purchase pension credit at minimal cost for service as an unpaid local official.
<
p>5. End the rule that enables elected officials who are not re-elected to start collecting their pensions early.
<
p>6. Eliminate pension boosts due to holding multiple jobs concurrently.
<
p>7. Eliminate double pensions by changing provisions which allow some employees to qualify for two public pensions.
<
p>8.Change the salary formula on Accidental Disability Retirement calculations to so as not to over-inflate benefits based on a temporary supervisory assignment.
<
p>9. Repeal the “spousal early retirement” provision whereby if two public employees are married and one retires, the other gets to retire early at full pension benefits.
<
p>
BTW – Reform = Health Care Reform, Energy Policy Reform – I supported the Governor, but I relaize not all things that come from the corner office is good.
He can support and recommend changes to an existing bill and testify before the Joint Committee on Public Service’s hearing on pension bills
<
p>Does he personally need to file a bill for everything he supports?
If he is chastising the people who actually did file and vote for it for their inaction on the issue!!!
<
p>Don’t you see the lack of argument.
C’mon. How many bills get filed and never pass or come to a vote or get watered down – like health care reform? The only way pension reform passes is if we need that money. Once we raise taxes the push for reform will fade away and the bill may never come to vote or get watered down.
<
p>That is the reality and is pretty plain to see no? All the Gov is asking is to pass a pension reform bill before raising revenue – THAT is how the process works.
<
p>BTW – if you are directing your comments to me you should use the reply button rather than the post one – it makes it easier to follow the conversation.
I think Jim nails it.
<
p>The public impression at the moment, I’d suggest, is: the Governor wants reform before revenue. The legislature just wants revenue. Those juicy pensions have to be paid, after all, and then there are pet projects, let’s not forget.
<
p>If the legislature really wants to improve its image, let it approve some substantive reform. They could do it in a few days if they really wanted to do so. Complaints about procedure just come off as excuses.
<
p>Where there is a will, there is a way.
There seems to be the idea at work that one proposal must go from filing to enactment to the Governor before the next proposal can be filed. Rep. Lewis explained in his diary what actions the House has taken so far. Do you really want them to sit and twiddle their thumbs waiting for the Senate, Conference Committee and Governor to act before the House even considers the next items on the agenda? In my opinion there SHOULD be multiple things in the pipeline simultaneously in order for the process to be efficient.
One fundamental question is why have these reforms not been tackled in the past? I would guess it’s because we now need those savings now more than ever.
<
p>If you remove the need then I believe it is very likely the bill never passes or it get’s so watered down it becomes worthless. That is part of the whole reform before revenue posit.
<
p>Revenue and then reform doesn’t work.
…why past sessions haven’t done this and I’m not defending it, but we also can’t change it. We can’t afford to do one thing at a time. We need both reform AND revenue urgently and neither should be hostage to the other. Again, according to Rep. Lewis, the House HAS acted on reform, so if that is the case they can proceed to revenue with a clear conscience.