I’m not a crazy ideologue that would argue that we need to run government like a business and I completely understand that government must provide services and approach issues that are often opposite to the function of a business, which is to generate profits. But that is no excuse for government agencies to ignore reality and maintain processes that are wasteful and inefficient, particularly in a time when we are cutting many necessary services that make up our safety net. Government should be implementing a host of cost saving measures that do not impact services-by incenting (or penalizing, however you want to look at it) people to conduct RMV transactions over the internet–so that our limited government resources can be allocated to critical services, such as early childhood intervention, which is being cut.
That is the theory and I accept the critique that government can implement technologies that save labor costs-such as automated tolls-but unable, or unwilling, to cut the actual positions and truly save costs. That is part of a larger problem that I will elaborate on down post: the general paralysis that we-across the ideological spectrum-are responsible for and results in the inability of our political process to make the hard decisions society needs to make, in order to create a fair and just society. To illustrate, let’s go back to chief argument against the $5 fee…
Yes, it is true that one or two segments of society will be more adversely impacted by this move-those who do not use the internet and can not afford $5, which is generally considered the poor and the elderly. But there is no change (period) that can be made which does not adversely affect one part of the population or another. Are we to simply not implement changes-no matter how commonsense they are-because one segment of society is adversely affected, even when it will benefit the common good and will not affect a vast majority of people? Of course, the irony of the argument that this fee will adversely affect the poor and the elderly is that if we maintain inefficient government services, we will be forced to do one of two things-cut services or implement regressive tax hikes (because those are the only kinds of taxes we have in Massachusetts). And who will be far more impacted by these service cuts or tax increases-far more than a $5 fee every couple of years if they can’t get to the library to use the internet-the poor and the elderly!
My disgust for the so-called fiscal conservatives within the Republican Party for slamming this plan is equal to the distain I have for the spineless Patrick Administration whose political aerobatics in the last 24 hours rivaled anything Shaun White performed at the Olympics. But my real outrage is reserved for members of the “objective” media who not only acted as an echo chamber for the opponents, but poured journalistic accelerant onto the story to sell more papers or get more viewers or listeners. Of course it is naive to suggest the press would attempt to step back and examine this subject with a detached view, but that was the fairy-tale I grew up with.
Ultimately, it is our political leaders that failed us, more concerned with scoring political points (or covering their political ass) than actual governing. The level of hypocrisy displayed by the Republicans, who embraced users fees when they controlled the executive branch–and today clamor for streamlined government efficiencies–only to oppose such a move in order to score political points; is only matched by the coward-like behavior of the Patrick Administration, who retreated from a sound policy initiative at the first sign of opposition. It is this kind of behavior that illustrates why Deval Patrick is a terrible Governor and should not be reelected, were it not for the fact that voting against him will result in the election of irresponsible fiscal hypocrites called Republicans.
Former Speaker of the Massachusetts House David Bartley had a saying that went something like this, “Good Politics is Good Government and Good Government is Good Politics”. Today that axiom has been turned upside down, “Good Government is Bad Politics and Bad Politics is Good Government”.
Which brings me to the larger point of this post. We are paralyzed by petty partisan behavior, fueled by extremists found ion both sides. It has always been easier to stop something or do nothing in our democratic political process, but when we’ve been confronted challenges in the past–Roosevelt’s 100 days or retooling the US economy (with price controls, rationing and no-strike rules, among other things) to fight WWII–we quickly adapted. Now we just get in our own way, whether we try and slay an out of control health care system that sucks up 1 in 6 dollars spent in the US (and growing!) or whether we try and move the simple procedure of registering our cars into the 21st Century.
I note that when banks began doing stuff like this, not only was there not a whimper, but the banks actually did something far more outrageous — they charged a FEE for using their automated tellers, when such use saved money for the bank.
<
p>So BofA happily collected extra money from automated tellers, where each use also saved the bank MORE money by taking load off of an expensive human teller.
<
p>This “outrage” is a tempest in a teapot; the most egregious aspect of the entire affair as you so correctly point out is the gutless dishonesty of all the players involved.
…because their missions are so different…the private sector has more guts (or luxury) of sticking to their guns, no matter what the backlash (with some exceptions–ie New Coke). You are correct about the sad irony of charging fees for ATM usage will cutting costs of tellers at the same time. But the the “private sector” argument prevailed (which I think is BS) and they with stood the sh*t storm and basically changed consumer behavior.
I moved my money into a credit union, which charges no fees. Banks are for bankers. If you’re not a banker, don’t waste your money by letting them play with it.
Maintaining the wasteful status quo or in favor of reforming an out-moded bureaucracy? Inquiring minds want to know!
RMV transaction online. That would compel people who could use the web to use it. I think they dropped that discount though. There are also some transactions you can’t do online, so you have to go to the registry to do it.
Is it like the Turnpike which was able to do it on its own. I believe that fees should be raised by the General Court, but if it is an independent authority then why are people screaming at the Governor and the legislature?
…under the Department of Transportation.
<
p>…meaning that someone in the Corner Office (not necessarily Patrick, himself) approved the fee, not considering that it would blow up in the Governor’s face.
It’s described in detail here.
<
p>
<
p>Mr. Mullan, former head of the Turnpike, is now head of Mass-DOT! I noticed that Deval only rescinded the fee after meeting with him.
<
p>This is all VERY new and largely unexamined, as people took Deval’s word for it that it represented ‘reform’.
<
p>(And I apologize for not seeing that the MBTA retained a seperate legal identity (unlike the RMV) although it is not governed by the Board.)
It would be educational if BMGers with knowledge of transit-specific inside ball want to weigh in on this…
<
p>In the past, starting with Dukakis, but accelerating with Weld and his Republican successors, the various transit agencies were an unstable amalgam of generic and elite patronage, which made the policy analysis thereof an exercise in checking out the day-to-day hack-wonk alliances.
<
p>While the personalities might be changing under Patrick, I doubt the institutional dynamic has…
In House One, the appropriation for Mass-DOT and other transportation agencies…is…
<
p>ZERO!
<
p>Because he proposes moving the whole shooting match off of appropriation and onto “bonds, grants (!), and trust funds”.
<
p>THAT way, no individual lines to see how much was appropriated! Remember how Carla Howell was mocked for saying that the budget wasn’t $28 billion, but $43 billion due to off the books spending? Well, Deval wants to take the combined transit agencies of the Commonwealth off into the heretofore ‘non-existant’ off books spending!
<
p>BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE!
<
p>EVERYTHING the transit agencies now do, from plow a street to build a bridge to pay the coffee lady will be more expensive – because it will all be cost plus INTEREST! Like paying your taxes with a credit card to avoid a late penalty!
<
p>THIS is the reform of Democrats!
<
p>I am not going to get excited until the House budget comes up, because House One is just a long-form gubernatorial press release, but if the House has the same structure – then WATCH OUT! NOW they made me mad!
The money MassDOT is bringing in from grants and fees is more than it costs to run MassDOT. These trust funds are funded by the fees they take in. http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy11…
<
p>My town has run our sewer system as an enterprise fund for decades, rather than funding it through tax increases. The world hasn’t ended yet.
<
p>It’s more like paying your taxes by selling off stocks instead of by paying your taxes from the bank account your salary is deposited into.
…and no irony intended: I’m not an accountant:
<
p>
<
p>Is there a reasonable and accurate projection for these funds over, say, ten years, or is it dependent on one-time (or otherwise unpredictable) federal appropriations?
<
p>
<
p>Is the above the equivalent of spending principal, as opposed to living off the interest?
Paul, see my response to Peter. I think it’ll answer your questions.
And spending fees from wireless leasing to run a subway system?
<
p>And does your sewer system (which is what percet of your town budget vs. whagt portion transportation is the MA budget) also pay the salary of its employees out of the fund? So they pay interest on those salaries and benefits?
I share your dismay at the direction this budget seems to be taking.
<
p>How much do you think the lege should appropriate for the MBTA this year, and how aggressively will you work to ensure that this amount is approved?
The process of moving the MBTA to forward funding (as opposed to past practice, where they just spent money and sent a bill to the Lege) is only a few years old, and is still pot-hole laden. The old days without having to plan a budget were so much easier…
<
p>The MBTA had only just begun to make fundign reqeusts like other agencies, and now, well, they may not bother.
<
p>I’m not sure how I can make anyone appropriate anything, let alone ensure it would be done…
I hope we agree that Massachusetts requires a healthy and strong MBTA. I’d say that “pot-hole laden” is a hilariously generous description of the “forward-funding” mess, especially given the simultaneous burdening of the MBTA with several billion dollars of Big Dig debt.
<
p>You know as well as I do that the real purpose of the forward-funding scam was to destroy the MBTA, and it is working.
<
p>You’re an elected representative. Unless you have a better proposal to put on the table, I think you’d better serve the public interest by supporting the imperfect proposal of Governor Patrick.
<
p>I’m really really weary of elected officials taking cheapshots at the few who attempt to solve our problems, while simultaneously offering few of their own. This is especially true in the lege.
<
p>I strongly encourage you to step up to the bar and do something constructive to solve the problem.
Peter, 5% the money in the transportation budget is from grants. Or 5.03% if you want to get really specific. Most of that is for capital items, like doing studies, or comes from formula grants that we’ll keep getting. About .4% comes from stimulus funds. 4 tenths of a percent.
<
p>Look at the revenue numbers. Even without the grants and the wireless leasing fees, MassDOT is bringing on more revenue than it’s spending.
<
p>And yes, our wastewater treatment plant pays the salaries and benefits out of the enterprise fund. That’s the idea of an enterprise fund. It’s self-sustaining. It brings in enough non-tax revenue to cover all of its own operating costs. No, why would they pay interest? That’s not how an enterprise fund works. It’s called a “fund” because the money is segregated from the money in the general budget.
What’s coming from bonds? Looking at the link I posted, I don’t see any bonds. Show me what you’re talking about.
I thought you were talking about the FY11 budget. The 2008 or 09 budget is over. we’ve incurred that debt. So unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I have to assume this is a responsible budget, because I don’t see any new bonds being taken out.
<
p>P.S. What are the interest rates on the trust fund vs. the bonds? Depending on bond rating, the interest on the trust fund may be higher. Town of Great Barrington is AA- and we actually made money on a portion of our fire station construction bonds by borrowing the full amount authorized by town meeting upfront and investing the cash while we were waiting to spend it.
<
p>But wait, I thought you wrote “bonds, grants(!), and trust funds”? So which is it.
<
p>Grants(!) and PP, there are zillions of them, mostly Federal match, won’t cost interest per se. Trust funds generate interest, not cost interest.
<
p>So look, we know you don’t like MassDOT. It’s new, it’s uncertain, and it might be problematic — those are things on which we can all agree. However, that doesn’t give you the artistic license to just make crap up.
And I want to see the breakdown of grants, trust and bonds – but right now, the bulk IS the bonds, and no matter how you apportion that money – costs will be plus interest (interest paid on bonds greatly outweighs interest generated on trust fund, for example).
Perhaps I misunderstand your comments here. I get the sense that you are waiting to find reasons to oppose the Governor’s proposals. I still haven’t heard you offer any alternative. Instead, I get the impression that you’re passively waiting for Governor Patrick to offer something that you can then jump out and attack — precisely the kind of relentlessly oppositional negativism that so characterizes today’s GOP (“Nattering nabobs of negatism” — yeah, THAT’S the ticket). There is a reason why there so few of you, with or without Scott Brown.
<
p>If your car is dying, and you depend on it to keep your job, and you have no money in the bank because your monthly check hasn’t arrived, then you use your credit card. You use your credit card because the cost of losing your car far exceeds the interest costs of the credit card loan.
<
p>If that happens month after month, you get a higher-paying job or you buy (on credit) a better car. Going without a car is not an option. If insist on refusing to face the reality of your life situation, you will lose your car, your job, and everything else. As nearly as I can tell, that is the path you and your GOP compatriots advocate. It hasn’t worked for the past thirty years and there is zero evidence that anything will change in the next thirty.
<
p>Nobody likes to borrow money. Nobody likes to spend money on car repairs. Most people have to do one or the other or both sometime during their lives.
<
p>Offer an alternative, please.
If paying for long lasting infrastructure, paying with bonds is responsible because it spreads the cost over the entire user base. Why should the people today pay for the entire project when most of ’em will be long gone before the bridge gets substantial work. Paying with a bond spreads the cost over the lifetime, which is quite reasonable for long term projects.
<
p>How many people buy their first home with 100% cash?