Remember that $295 million budget gap that emerged a couple of weeks ago? The one that, according to perpetual doom-sayer Mike Widmer, was “a very big deal” showing that “there’s no end to the bad news”? The one that, according to Charlie Baker, revealed “fundamental incompetence” on the part of both Deval Patrick and Tim Cahill?
Well, um, never mind.
Turns out, the gap isn’t $295 million, it’s $195 million. Also turns out that $77 million of it will be covered by the feds. That leaves about $118 million.
Under the [Patrick administration’s] plan, this would be accomplished by reducing spending by $38 million in 10 accounts, draining a $50 million surplus from a state transportation fund, and taking $30 million from the state’s rainy day fund….
Steven C. Panagiotakos, Senate Ways and Means chairman, said the Senate will probably vote on the governor’s proposal next week. “I think it’s reasonable and it’s prudent,” said Panagiotakos, a Lowell Democrat. “I do hate that we have to use any money from the rainy day account, but we really have no choice at this late time in the budget cycle.” About $600 million is left in the rainy day account.
Charles A. Murphy, House Ways and Means chairman and a Burlington Democrat, said he was happy to learn that the gap is not as severe as predicted. He said the governor’s plan for closing the shortfall relies on “reasonable savings.”
And here’s the really good news:
Administration officials insisted that the blueprint offered yesterday will not result in reduced services because it relies mostly on redirecting money from programs that were given more than they needed.
When the alleged $295 million shortfall emerged, I was concerned that I would have to declare Governor Patrick’s recent winning streak at an end. But with today’s news, I don’t think that’s the case. Rather, I think this is yet another example of successfully managing a budget through extraordinarily tough economic times.
Win.
Although I’d rather he take less than $50M from transportation, spending the remainder on MBTA projects which are in their CIP and lower their operating costs. Yeah, that means more from rainy day. But know what’s really important for folks who have rainy days? The T. It ensures that no matter what your current economic status, if you live in Boston Metro you can get to work.
It’s the economic engine. It’s also the only place in the state where substantial investment in transportation is more efficient for mass transit than for autos.
<
p>You want better mass transit in the South Shore/Cape? I’m all for it. The fact is that your communities don’t want it — they’re not going to be willing to pony up to pay for a portion of it like every city and town in the Boston Metro does, in direct transfer payments to the MBTA. They’re also not willing to change their zoning to allow for the kinds of density that mass transit requires.
<
p>
<
p>So, quit whining about not being in Boston Metro. It’s a different animal, with different needs and different abilities. Boston Metro is where mass transit belongs, and mass transit is an important part of environmental, economic, and social sustainability.
A LOT of people commute to Boston from very outlying cities via the train. So please do not dismiss us here in Lowell because we’re not Boston area! We use public transit too.
although I’m not quite clear how this maintain’s the governor’s “winning streak.” Certainly cities and towns and people who rely on state services from the T to their dental care haven’t been feeling as though they’re on a winning streak lately. Nor do all the people in the state who are out of work. Are all those people now saying they’re going to vote to re-elect this governor because the budget gap is down to only $195 million this week?
Do you include coming in 13th out of 16 applicants in the Race to the Top application process amongst those winners? What the hell we were only looking at $250,000,000. And oh by the way, should Reville be fired or should he resign quietly?
The states which didn’t apply finished below MA in the standings.
Then Reville stays. Guess what we get for coming in 13th. $0!
And if you only try when you’re assured the win, you’re destined for mediocrity at best.
Give Paul and Mitch a pat on the back for trying. Then can the two of them.
How well students were performing factored greatly in who got the money. Taking that into consideration, what should Massachusetts have done? We’re the best school system in the country; our students do well. If high perfomance caps us in the knees, I’m not exactly sure what the Governor was supposed to do.
<
p>Passing a huge ed reform bill, getting everyone in the state to go along with it, certainly indicates he tried damn hard. What would Charlie Baker, Christy Mihos or Tim Cahill have done differently to secure those funds? It’s much easier to bash the governer in a vacuum, but when the other guys couldn’t have done any better, suddenly it gets much harder.
I know you BMGers don’t like the Pioneer folks, but give thema try.
<
p>www.pioneerinstitute.org/blog
<
p>
Just because they post a blog doesn’t mean they have any more credibility than, I dunno, the TRUTH – as Ryan said, the facts were stacked against us. Why would anyone award us money in a contest like this when the tests, at least, show our schools to be between 3rd and 1st in the nation, and the other states have worse schools? There are greater needs. (In breaking news, greater financial need determines who gets student grants and student government loans, too!)
<
p>I thought this whole Race to the Top thing was rather bullshit. It’s NOT a good fix for the nation. Sure, it incentivizes a few states to get reform done and other things, but as a long term fix, it suffer from, well, the fact it IS NOT going to all states, but only a select few.
Sometimes politicians win despite themselves.
<
p>The Patrick administration is telling us that after all the cutbacks, all the reductions, all the financial manipulations (including raid after raid on the rainy day fund), some programs were “given more than they needed”.
I don’t understand why Patrick’s critics attack him for “raiding” the rainy day fund. If the worst economic collapse since the 30s isn’t a rainy day, what is?
abusing it is something else. How many times and how many millions of dollars have been withdrawn from it when doing so should be the last measure of political necessity – not political expediency. Patrick’s and the current legislature’s draining of the fund is much too much of the second.
Tell us: how much money is using, and how much is abusing?
<
p>My bet is that you don’t have the foggiest idea what the numbers even are; you’ve just got it in your head that Deval is wrong on this so you say so, despite any evidence one way or the other.
<
p>Shoe me I’m wrong. Present the data — how much is he using, how much will be left, how much has been used in similar situations in other states or other times, etc.
that has enabled a terrible imbalance between public sector compensation and private sector income.
<
p>The drumbeat reported in the newspapers recounts over and over again how the income of public servants – on all levels – has far exceeded the public-private compact that public servants would earn less but be compensated with a pension upon retirement.
<
p>As reported repeatedly, the compact has been broken with numerous and ongoing accounts of bloated pensions, 20-year and out retirement packages and double dipping. All of this with the assistance of the Legislature over decades.
the problem is that we have a budget gap right now that has to be fixed in the next three months before the fiscal year ends. There isn’t time to overhaul the pension system and fix all the other problems you point to with state government between now and June. But we do have to balance the budget. I’d rather see a modest draw on the Rainy Day Fund — since it is indeed raining — than further cuts to services, which seems to be the other choice.
A budget crisis is never considered the proper time for executive and legislature corrections to prevent future financial emergencies.
<
p>In times when the financial picture is relatively calm there is no pressure for the necessary changes. Result: no changes.
<
p>
which don’t match reality.
<
p>
<
p>Really, show me three — from different news sources. Shouldn’t be that hard, what with the drumbeat and all. And an article about a few individuals doesn’t cut it — of course there will be individual exceptions and errors in a system this large. I’m talking broad based evidence.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>What percent of gov’t employees have bloated pensions, and how does that compare to the private sector? Which employees have 20-year and out retirement packages (with full retirement)? Where’s evidence of widespread double dipping?
<
p>
<
p>You’ve got nothing but impressions from Herald headlines, and that’s not reality based. I’m not arguing that the gov’t employee compensation packages are optimal. I’m also not letting you just make widespread claims with no evidence simply because it fits your worldview of government.
Simple. Its going to rain for a few more years.
which is, wait for it… exactly what has been happening. That’s sound fiscal management. Kudos to the legislators who pumped money in to the rainy day fund when times were good, for precisely situations like these!
Let’s not forget that the same GOP that today says “we shouldn’t spend these funds” steadfastly opposed setting them aside during boom times — their claim then was “any surplus proves excess taxation.”
<
p>State and local governments who (unlike the feds) cannot run a deficit must set aside reserves during boom times so that they can fund necessary spending during recessions.
<
p>This simple reality seems to escape the “fiscally responsible” conservatives who so loudly proclaim their self-serving nonsense.
Let me get this straight – we have EXCESS transportation money? Money that could be used to repair roads, repair bridges, enhance or accelerate MBTA projects, repair crumbling sidewalks and get started with more miles of bike paths. Projects that would result in more JOBS for out of work residents, and taxpayers when they work. Yet, we have not spent it so now it is going to be used to bridge a budget shortfall caused, in part, by unemployment.
<
p>Sorry David, this is not a winning streak, this is a slap in the face of every commuter in MA regardless of how they get around.
Your want to be Deval’s cheerleader has turned into a case of lost objectivity. Take a day off dude.
Totally rad advice, “dude.”
From the Globe:
<
p>
<
p>You could theoretically use that money for the purposes you describe, but it would have to be re-appropriated by the legislature. The current proposal is to move it into the General Fund, as I understand it.
I believe that we need to be spending more to repair our existing infrastructure and build new to bring us into the 21st century. If we continue on our current path we will be relegated to emergency repairs and other efforts in hope of preventing massive failures rather than building an infrastructure that can support the future of the Commonwealth.
<
p>Taking money from any Transportation account strikes a bad note with me.
<
p>On a separate note, a question, how can a recently established account have a $50 million surplus? I do not know, but with all the auditor candidates on these pages, maybe one or two could lend a hand with how a recently established account has a $50 million surplus?
that we’re faced with a deficit situation. So, yeah, other things being equal, it’s a bad idea to divert money from transportation. But other things aren’t equal right now. The account in question has $50 million more than it needs, so it makes no sense for that money to stay there, since you can’t spend money in a particular fund for purposes other than what the fund is authorized for. You could reappropriate the money to another transportation account and spend it. But then you’ve still got a $50 million budget problem. How do you solve it? Cut more human services?
<
p>Personally, I think this is a no-brainer. There are three months left in the fiscal year; we have a budget gap to fix; there’s more dough in this particular account than is needed for the account’s purposes. So draining the surplus is an easy way of reducing the budget gap (which is mandatory) without either raising more taxes or cutting spending elsewhere.
but it does strike me as another instance of buying office supplies on the last day of the year — or rather, of raiding the offices just before they get a chance to do just that.
the money is not as fungible as it seems, since it has to be reappropriated to do any of the good stuff you’d want to do. Legislative action is required; the question is whether it goes to other transportation goodies (at the cost of cuts elsewhere), or to averting other, most likely more painful, cuts. And I do see it as a no-brainer.
the fact that our government somehow cannot find a way to spend $50M in allocated transportation funds while our transportation system is literally crumbling around us exemplifies the utter dysfunction of our current government.
<
p>Isn’t there a long list of MBTA safety issues articulated by the NTSB? Wouldn’t $50M buy a few more off-hour trips? Wouldn’t it buy a few more commuter rail trips?
<
p>Perhaps a few T stops might get painted? Maybe replace some of the dark and rotting light fixtures? Maybe even do some studies to figure out why it seems to take 36-48 months to finish each and every 6-month project?
<
p>I find it utterly unbelievable that the greatest minds in MassDOT can’t find a way to spend $50M on much-needed transportation in Massachusetts.
is, according to the Globe, “to pay down debt on highway repairs and construction projects.” If you don’t need the money for that, which apparently they don’t, you have to move the money into another account before doing any of those fine things.
<
p>Now, there’s no reason you can’t do that, assuming the legislature is game — except that then you’ve got to find your $50 million of deficit reduction somewhere else. So … what’s your strategy?
I’d seek a way to use the $50M to pay some of the debt service on the $2B+ Big Dig debt foisted on the MBTA. Surely there is more than $50M in “debt on highway repairs and construction projects” still outstanding somewhere in Massachusetts.
<
p>And yes, I think we should find the $50M of deficit reduction somewhere else.
re the MBTA debt is that, yeah, you could probably do that. It would be a drop in the bucket; it wouldn’t make much difference to the MBTA’s debt problem; it wouldn’t lower fares or improve service, certainly not in the short term.
<
p>But $50 million out of some other account, esp. a human services account, would likely have a big impact.
<
p>So, again, I see this as an easy call.
any effort to actually fix the enormous problem that the Big Debt creates for the MBTA must come from the lege. It seems to me that priority conflicts like this present an opportunity to force the lege to solve the problem they created when they saddled the MBTA with this crushing debt.
<
p>I think Governor Patrick should keep them on the hook at least long enough to extract a commitment to make a substantive effort to solve the MBTA debt problem.
<
p>While I enthusiastically agree with you that human services have already borne far too much of the brunt of our catastrophic economic situation, I feel that we must use every lever available to us in solving the even more pressing crisis facing our public transportation system.
<
p>I think the “easy call” you suggest removes a needed incentive to force the lege to address the urgent priorities of the Commonwealth. Since we agree that further cuts in human services should be off the table, the $50M should come from somewhere else. Perhaps Governor Patrick can help the lege find a more appropriate target.
I’d spend the $50M on projects on the MBTA’s CIP which will (a) increase safety, and (b) lower operating costs.
<
p>I understand your point about having to move the money twice, and all of the uncertainty behind it. That gets to BT’s point: that very uncertainty shows that the gov’t isn’t as well oiled a machine as it should be.
<
p>I understand that it’s easy to just raid transportation instead of human services. The reality, though, is that a dysfunctional MBTA has great harm on those who rely on human services too — not able to get to one’s job, one’s doctor, one’s school, etc safety and timely does present a very real harm.