Recently, I caught this blurb over at Mass Beacon. In it, Bump offers her support for Terry Murray and Karen Spilka’s bill to consolidate economic development agencies and funding. Pretty standard stuff, but it was what she said in doing so that caught my attention:
The public has a right to ask why we aren’t getting better results given the multiple agencies allegedly committed to the task of creating jobs. The answer is simple. We obviously need both better collaboration, as well as more accountability, to create job growth strategies which actually produce the results taxpayers have every right to expect and demand from these types of entities. Not only do I strongly support this reform, as the next State Auditor I intend to ensure it actually works by first performing an analysis of its efficiency and effectiveness as required by the legislation, and then also making our findings easily available for public review and scrutiny.
That’s a strong commitment to follow closely the implementation of policy, but also to transparency. The legislature doesn’t do enough of the former or the latter. That is why an independent Auditor overseeing the laws and weighing in on their effectiveness is important – providing a critical challenge function to other government offices.
And she goes on to flag an issue of vital importance – independent analysis of tax incentive programs:
One of my priorities for the Office of State Auditor will be to provide on-going independent analysis of the Commonwealth’s business development programs and tax incentive programs. The State Auditor can play a powerful and important role in assisting the Governor and Legislature in their efforts to create new jobs and grow productive businesses in Massachusetts.
A fresh look at tax incentive programs is long overdue. As a report by the Mass Budget and Policy Center details, we are due to spend $1.7 billion (yes billion) on economic development tax credits in the current fiscal year alone. Compare this to the $1 billion we spend on public higher education, which everyone considers vital to our state’s economy, and the degree of expenditure we make on economic development becomes clear.
And while each year, the conventional operational expenditures made to fund the programs and activities of state government go through the legislative ringer, tax credits stay clear of annual evaluation. They just stay on the books.
And what is troubling about this lack of analysis is that we often don’t know what we are getting for the billions spent. The Boston Fed found these programs hard to evaluate. Jennifer Weiner of the Fed said this about it In an article in the Worcester Business Journal:
Attempts to hold tax incentives up to the light run into two problems: The state doesn’t keep data on the effectiveness of tax incentives, and methodological issues. The methodological issues stem from the fact that you really want to compare what happens with incentives in place versus what would’ve happened without it, but you can’t really see that second piece.
So I’m glad we have an Auditor candidate interested in looking at what has become a massive subsidy system at the heart of state government. Maybe tax incentives work, but it would be good to have an important and independent officer doing the analysis. We need someone there who is not afraid to ask tough questions of the other branches of government, even if they are run by people in the same party. If the evidence and data available to measure programs is unavailable, it could be the Auditor’s job to mandate what data and metrics to use in evaluating them – and do that.
And all this again begs the question about what is the Auditor for. From a quick look over the net (if anyone can correct this please do), the Auditor’s job was created in 1849 by the legislature, who originally appointed someone to the position. Six years later, a Constitutional Amendment was passed to make the position a statewide elected office (along with that of Secretary and Treasurer). Its my view, that to continue to justify the position as a statewide elected office, it has to be more public facing and strategic than is currently the case. If its just an internal audit function, it would seem better again as an appointed role and maybe given we already have an Inspector General it may not be necessary in such a limited guise.
The difference I see is this. In financial control terms, many programs, including tax credits, may be run according to proper accountancy and legal conditions. Of course these need to be checked by the Auditor. But even if found to be properly managed, the outcomes these programs are intended to deliver are even more important to measure. The Auditor can and should play an important role in measuring how government is performing in doing the things people want it to. Maybe that constitutes an expansion of the current job. Maybe the skills, competencies, funding and legislative mandate of the Auditor’s office will need to expand to meet this broader remit. But if it saves us money and makes government more effective its worth it.
Suzanne Bump seems to implicitly agree that the role is more than just about preventing abuses and counting money. It certainly should be. That is why I think Bump gets the job – and is going to get my vote.
I will support the candidate whose platform is that the state auditor position be abolished. We don’t need another place for electeds to stash their cousins.
No vote
so maybe the citizens of MA all have a common cousin we’d like to stash in the auditor’s job; short of that your post makes no sense.
It seems odd that someone would spend all that time writing a thoughtful piece and not sign their name.
…who has intelligent ruminations on a variety of subjects.
<
p>In this case, she makes some good points, that I notice nobody has been willing to address.
adds credibility to the post.
Thoughts is thoughts. Truth is truth.
<
p>In the free market of speech, it’s the product, not the brand that counts.
also adds credibility. Were you around here for a long time, you’d know that. kthx.
Mr. Whelan’s prefered mannor of dismissing people is “Thank you for the conversation” or “Let’s chat again soon.” It’s at once condescending and faux polite. Example here.
<
p>As you’ll see, Mr. Whelan also enjoys inventing positions for others and making odd, unsubstantiated claims (like it mattering that lanugo didn’t sign her name, or that Howie Carr is a journalist).
I think!
I do believe that Howie Carr is a journalist. He may not be a good journalist or even one that you find to be particularly accurate, but he is a journalist. That is not an unsubstantiated claim, it is my opinion.
<
p>And thanks for the lecture.
It should read:
<
p>
<
p>Because, you know, opinions matter so much more than claims, especially when dealing with definitions.
when random new people show up somewhere and start lecturing the folks who’ve been around for ages on how things work?
I agree. I always thought that “Publius” fellow was rather suspicious, too.
Okay, half-joking, but this was an excellent diary. I so, so, so agree with everything you’ve had to say — and if Suzanne Bump’s going to truly be this kind of person in office, she definitely has my vote.
Have you done any research into the other candidates, or are you basing your decision on a single diary? I have heard all three candidates speak. In the case of Mike Lake, I have heard him twice and a volunteer from his campaign speak a third time. (I was there collecting signatures for another race)
<
p>I saw all three at the largest of the caucuses I attended. Bump didn’t impress me at all. Glodis seemed like an affable guy, but I didn’t hear much in the way of substance. At a second event I saw someone collecting signatures for him, but he didn’t speak.
<
p>It was Mike Lake who impressed me the most. When I was in my 20s I wasn’t doing much productive at all. He was a special assistant in the Clinton White House. He seemed smart, energetic, and like he had a plan for what he wanted to do when he got in office. What I really like to hear was how he didn’t just want to be an after-the-fact reviewer. His idea to be proactive and take best practices to government agencies seems like a pretty forward thinking thing to do.
<
p>Also, as someone who has been to enough of these events to be impressed by such things, I was impressed by his presence in multiple spots. Like I said, of the four I attended I saw him twice, his rep once, and his papers were on the table at the fourth. Aside from the big event I didn’t see anyone at the caucuses for Bump.
<
p>I haven’t officially signed a pledge card or anything, but I’m planning to vote for Lake at the Convention.
1) You skipped past the if and went straight for the then. An if/then statement is not tantamount to, “If I post favorably about a candidate, then I’m going to vote for that candidate.” Sheesh.
<
p>2) The guy running for auditor who’s being audited by the auditor will not get my vote. Whether he’s “guilty” in the view of the law or not is immaterial, he’s certainly using public money for questionable things. So, no, Mr. Sheriff, you aren’t getting my vote.
<
p>3) If you want to argue for your own candidate, your best possible strategy isn’t baseless accusation mixed with difficulty in reader comprehension. Perhaps, next time, you should engage in conversation instead of going straight for the accusation — at least if you’re actually interested in getting me to vote for your candidate of preference.
You begin by stating you think it was a great diary. Then you say that if she is going to be that kind of auditor, she will have your vote. It seems to me that she needs your vote before she can be that kind of auditor. With that contradiction in mind, I don’t think I am the only one who read that your comment as an endorsement.
<
p>Without any space-time continuum issues, you also said “I so, so, so agree with everything you’ve had to say.” Must be my reading comprehension issues, but I assumed – wrongly, I guess – that your agreement included the general endorsement of Bump in the diary, and the final paragraph in particular.
<
p>
<
p>Are you now saying that you so, so dont agree with that statement? When you put it all together it looks like you’ve announced your decision for Bump.
<
p>Finally, I never accused you of anything. I asked a question of you, and you immediately got defensive. Perhaps if you answered the question we could have that conversation you talked about.
I said it was a great diary. I didn’t say it was a great diary because I [heart] Suzanne Bump. I didn’t really even know who she was. I thought it was a great diary because it spoke eloquently to what I think is a major problem today — the fact that we’re spending all this money on tax credits without taking the time to prove that they’re being spent efficiently. I’ve long thought we should be investigating whether or not that $1.7 billion is an efficient use of our funding — but I didn’t know we already had a good office that could be looking into it. So I thought it was a good diary because of how it mentioned a problem and discussed a possible solution, not because it was Ra! Ra! Ra! Go Team Bump!
<
p>Apparently, your difficulty with reader comprehension, or at least selective application of it, extends to your own writing. You said I was a Suzanne Bump supporter based on my if/then statement, which is patently absurd. Just because I speak positively about a candidate early in the campaign doesn’t mean that candidate is going to be the one who gets my vote; for an example, I voted for Alan Khazei in the primary even though I was tremendously supportive of Capuano’s campaign all along and had intended to vote for him at the beginning of the campaign, before I knew who Alan Khazei was.
<
p>Blogs are a discussion; what’s said in one post isn’t necessarily final. Because I spoke positively about Bump doesn’t mean I’d vote for her; she’d have to prove that she was the candidate which lanugo described. That’s why I made it an if/then statement. Perhaps you shouldn’t be so defensive, or jump to conclusions so quickly. Lake will get his fair shake — instead of making accusations and condemnations about my candidate selection process, maybe you should go write a nice, detailed post on your candidate of preference, or what you think about the candidates in geenral. I’d be happy to read that, but I’m done reading what you think about how I select candidates, because to be honest, it’s none of your freaking business.
I had the chance to meet Mike Lake a couple times out and about, and while he is definitely a nice guy, his platform consisted of vague generalizations (accountability, transparency) and VERY short on specifics. In the two speeches I’ve heard, he hasn’t once mentioned something different he would do.
<
p>Suzanne Bump – smart person, again very short on specifics. I still remain VERY wary of anyone who was an insurance lobbyist for a number of years, then a lobbyist for Citigroup. Unless there’s been a dramatic shift in the insurance lobby and they now represent progressive values and the best interests of taxpayers, then I’m supposed to assume she’s now seen the light and wants to help people?
<
p>Guy Glodis – met him twice, knew what he was talking about. He was the only candidate talking about specifics. The one I remember was doing an analysis of the true cost of using out of state labor. Interesting angle. Also said something about making sure stimulus funding isn’t misused on personnel costs (overtime expenses a hot topic in today’s paper).
<
p>I’m looking forward to what the candidates have to say in the coming months, but so far I’d give the edge to Glodis.
any state legislator who would vote to take that $1.7 billion in tax incentives and give half of it to public higher education and the other half to public transportation has my vote for life. It would do infinitely more to help the economy and grow jobs, as well as just make life better for the rank and file citizen. Half of $1.7 billion would go a long way for both of those institutions. Dare I say it, half of $1.7 billion/year alone could fund the New Bedford train and other major transportation projects.
Suzanne is a great candidate and I agree that the emphasis on evaluating all programs, including tax credits not in the official budget, is correct. She’ll have my vote.
Know people supporting both; met, but wasn’t impressed, by Glodis.
<
p>Shallow of me, I know, but I don’t like the Bump signs/slogan “counting dollars, making change” – way too cutsy for a serious job.
It’s not too cutsy for me. Wicked funny.
It is memorable which is always good when running for office, particularly a down ballot race. Clever for sure.