I can’t think of a single taxpayer who is not a police officer or relative of one who has not wanted to get rid of police details for construction sites, or to moderate the taxpayer-funded Quinn bill. On the former, no previous (mostly Republican) governor has ever been able to make the process that Patrick has made on civilian flaggers – sure, there was a limit to what Patrick could do, since he has control over state projects and only certain ones at that. But he did what he could to join the rest of the 49 states in hiring civilian flaggers at construction sites. Look, our police are too damn valuable to be directing traffic all the time. They’re overtrained for such duties. It’s a waste of our taxpayer money to continue to allow it.
And on the Quinn bill, look, I’m all for better educated police officers. However, there is a limit to what the state, and cities and towns, can afford, and a college education isn’t really completely applicable to most police jobs in the ranks (even patrolmen get a huge 30% bonus for achieving a master’s degree! WTF?). They get their education paid for, then get bonuses afterward. Well, everyone in this economy is struggling, and to ignore the fact that other state employees (as well as private sector workers) are taking furloughs and getting laid off, is to be tone deaf. The police unions certainly are very tone deaf.
So that’s why their standing out today is really actually helping Patrick. Because they remind the public of the things they hate about how taxpayer dollars are sometimes spent. Their signs were insulting – Deval Hates Cops? Really? Or Deval Is Against Public Safety? Melodramatic much?
I know it’s the job of a union to fight for all the perks they can get, and to fight to keep the ones they’ve had, but seriously, you guys are doing yourselves no favor with your shouting and your overdramatic signs. The public sides with Patrick on this one, folks, and there’s no denying it. So, thanks for standing out in support of Governor Patrick’s reelection campaign. We all appreciate it!
Looks like a few high ranking Dems think the flagger program kinda sucks.
<
p>
<
p>http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…
How many times are you going to recycle the same attacks on Deval?
<
p>They weren’t compelling a month ago; they’re even less compelling as twice warmed over leftovers.
Dear Huh:
Deval Patrick slept for 3 1/2 years and now he’s engaged. Yea! Oh, and by the way, the author of this diary brought up details. I just found it to be a good opportunity to cite the fact that Sen. Steve Baddour of Methuen and Rep. Joseph Wagner of Chicopee agreed with my assessment of Deval’s handling of the program and they disagreed with yours.
Dave
You’ve presented no new information and the refutations and counter-arguments presented last time still stand. It would have been “nice” if you could have provided detail or some reasoning. Otherwise it just seems mindless Deval bashing.
<
p>Your going back and zeroing my comments is a little childish.
Zeroing my comments seems childish. Why not come up with details or backing arguments instead?
Just a few memories from the past 42 months
1) Marian Walsh-What the hell were you thinking?
<
p>2) The Diane Wilkerson endorsement-What the hell where you thinking?
<
p>3) Paul Reville telling the Gloucester folks to stick it. Why is he still employed by the Commonwealth?
<
p>4) You ignoring the issue raised in #3 above. You telling the Gloucester folks to stick it.
<
p>5) Mitch Chester telling the Gloucester folks to stick it.
<
p>6) You declaring chapter 70 “broken” and doing NOTHING to fix it. (video available upon request, transcript from 2008 Salem Town Hall available)
<
p>7) You telling Nate Jacobson that charter schools were wonderful but the funding formula was flawed and then doing nothing to fix it. (video available upon request, see #s 3, 4 , and 5 above, and why would anyone interview with Natalie Jacobson? (remember John Silber))
<
p>8) You expressing concern over the charter school funding formula during a 2006 debate with Gabielli and Reilly. You doing nothing about the funding formula. (transcript of ch 4 debate available upon request and see most of the above)
<
p>9) You ignoring the PROMISE made in 2006 by the Commonwealth to raise ALL districts to 17.5% of foundation budget by fy 2011 and then IGNORING that promise in your fy 2011 budget. By the way, there are over 50 communities involved. Two of those kids affected by the underfunding identified in 2006 live in my house.
<
p>10) You doing NOTHING to solve the problems facing cities and towns relative to group health costs. Your tweaks to the GIC legislation ALWAYS left the decision in the hands of the teacher’s union and you knew it. Thus you did NOTHING to solve the problem.
<
p>Game on! Enjoy your weekend! See you in Lynn tomorrow evening!
<
p>Not a hotel room available in the City of Worcester next Friday night. Elections are apparently good for the economy.
This diary is about police unions. You injected a discussion of flaggers into it. I’m asking for details or backing on that.
<
p>I suppose the same could be asked about any of your “arguments.”
<
p> I’m guessing your response is another cut and paste… Just to be clear: you DO realize I’m not Deval, nor do I represent him. Right?
BTW I do not hate Deval Patrick. I hate the horsecrap job he has done over these last 42 months. Cool?
Another cut and paste. I love that you can’t even be bothered to tailor your re-posts to the conversation at hand. So MAVERICKY!
How many times do you hear union officials putting the squeeze either on MA Dems or activists demanding they support a union issue like card check (which I do on merit) or pay issue. Their line is “we’ve helped you, now you help us”. That argument has merit, except for FACT that unions haven’t been supportive of Dem candidates…many supported Brown over Coakley because of their opposition to health care, various public unions State police, MBTA’s Carmen union) supported Republican Governors in the 90s and who can forget the Boston Police embarrassing Dukakis in ’88. Shameful.
<
p>I’ve been to many Democratic activist meeting where complete outrage is expressed about details…and I think to myself, “My God, if the outrage is so strong in this room, imagine the anger and frustration the ‘average Joe’ feels.” By far the unions are the most tone-deaf people in society (OK, the bankers and the corporate elite feeling entitled to 8 figure pay are way more tone deaf).
The problem is that your party has not fixed the detail problem.
<
p>We have met the enemy and he is us.
<
p>
“Your party”, that being the Republican Party in the guise of Weld, Celluci, Swift and Romney got nothing done–one of them (Weld?) tried with details and was soon as he caught opposition, retreated. And you can thank these the first three for giving the keys to the candy store to public unions in terms of contract perks, with Celluci getting the prize by giving the carmen’s union the ability to retire after 20 years…IN THEIR FORTIES.
<
p>When you first started posting of Redmass you appeared to have some substance, but lately you line up behind the likes of Eabo and other knee-jerk conservatives. Note that is diary is one a liberal site and it is liberals offering constructive opinions about “on of our own”. But you partisan twist of the knee offers nothing constructive, rather destructive. I had hoped you would be someone I could agree to disagree with and find common ground to solve problems. Instead you’ve transformed into a cliche of talking points, lacking substance and any level of credibility.
Is a great way to characterize the sentiment that many people express regarding details, overtime pay (intimately linked of course) and the myriad types of raises (step, merit, longevity, Quinn, etc.) when many of the people asked to support these programs are facing no raises, lost hours and, in far too many cases, lost jobs.
<
p>It is time for the public and public employees to come together to develop solutions to the impending crises of pensions, retiree health care and local aid cuts. These problems can not be solved by tax increases alone. There will be need for substantial changes in the way that public employee benefits are funded. The sad reality is we cannot afford them at the local or state level.
<
p>The old approach of we need to negotiate everything and get something for everything we give up will probably not work this time. We are in a crisis. Look at the unfunded liabilities in the pensions and retiree medical plans. We cannot wait six or nine months or even years for negotiations to hopefully reach some resolution. We need leadership on the municipal and union sides to solve these issues now.
<
p>They will not go away on their own and hoping tomorrow brings a better day only postpones the reckoning and makes it worse.
<
p>I thought we already had pension reform and I thought Patrick solved the health insurance mess with his GIC legislation?
<
p>I’m kidding of course. Deval Patrick will campaign on the notion that he has reformed this and that. I say bullshit.
<
p>This would be a lot more interesting if 1) you didn’t openly hate Deval and 2) if you provided backing outside the context of that hatred.
<
p>But, you know, if DAVID WHELAN says it’s bullshit, well, gosh, I’ll have to think about it. The man quotes the HERALD quoting people that don’t like Deval. You really can’t get any more credible than that.
/sarcasm off
are the voice for workers rights and are a force against the corporations who would rather see all workers earning less while taking funds from the fed and state governments because these workers are earning wages that keep them in poverty.
<
p>What I notice is that unions seem to be able to demand much more from government jobs than they do in private sector jobs. I do think unionized government jobs could and should take cuts during rough times, just like everyone else. But I understand why they are fighting hard against it. Workers are losing their edge in this ever corporate dominated environment.
<
p>I’m sure that the union leaders are not stupid enough to believe that they will get more support for workers’ rights from the Republicans. However, I will say that Dems have not exactly been stepping up to the plate lately, with all of the corporate bought leaders in our government. I do think unions will leave the Democrats and support more independent candidates. I think that leaving the Republicans and the Democrats in the dust is where we are headed anyway. Neither party really understands what it is to be a working/middle class person in today’s America. (unless, of course, they are in campaign mode – that’s when they totally get it).
<
p>The only hope the Democrats have is to get more working class advocates in office. But that seems to be a hard sell because workers these days are marginalized as uneducated waste matter who should have tried harder in school so they could do better for themselves. The American worker is simply not valued. The big money is what is valued, admired and sought after.
I agree that unions have and continue to play an important role in providing balance between corporations and their employees. However, how does this work in the public sector where the employers are the cities, towns and other organizations? This is also the sector where, I have read, unions now garner the majority of their members from.
<
p>I put forward the idea that there is a difference between public sector unions and their private sector brethren. In the private sector, there is the potential that employers will seek to profit at the expense of their employees. In the public sector, this potential is, in my view, much less likely to occur. This makes the union and employer interaction different. I think we need to understand the difference and the role it plays in resolving the increasingly dire economic futures facing our municipal and state governments.
<
p>The more I read about health care costs, pension costs, salary costs, etc. the more I am concerned about the future viability of municipal and state governments. From California and Los Angeles to New Jersey and points North and South there are pension plans and municipal and state budgets in what can only be called perilous condition. Salaries and benefits are the largest drivers of these expenses. Yes, some of the issue is due to governments not setting aside funds or enough funds for future needs. Still some of the issue is due to the government agreeing to union contracts that they, in hindsight, should not have agreed to.
<
p>As I noted above, it is up to both the public and the elected officials that represent them and the public employees and the unions who represent them to come to an agreement quickly that leads to a resolution of these issues. Otherwise, further economic collapse and potential bankruptcy becomes more probably, an outcome that helps neither side.
<
p>I hope the unions can see the large role they play in crafting the solution to this issue. Without their involvement and collaboration we all could be in for difficult times.
Between the realities of prop 2 1/2 and the economy in general, cities and towns across the Commonwealth CANNOT deliver the services that residents have come to expect without substantial help from public employee unions. Help means concessions and an understanding that comp may not increase anytime soon and their benefits may look different. That is a fact. It’s not a comment that is meant to be mean, angry, or bitter. It’s just a fact.
<
p>Two reasons why the state economy is at least two years away from rebound:
<
p>1) unemployment
2) the stock market. not today’s market but the one of two years ago that created loss carryforwards on tax returns that will effectively offset cap gain income and the associated tax for at least a few years.
<
p>Other than that robust times are right around the corner.
<
p>
To view the actions of the police union and the right wing building trades as representative of “the unions” is just foolish.
<
p>I reject the notion that the extreme right wing that controls the police unions in this state have any credibility in representing the interests of the working class.
It is such a sad statement about the cops. I only wish the Governor wasn’t so “nice” and would actually take the next logical step, which is to 100% run on this issue. He should be using the police hatred of him as a medal.
<
p>Signs like how Deval hates theh police are just ludicrous on its face.
<
p>-49 other states don’t have cops doing details on construction sites.
<
p>-As you mention, gov’t workers are taking furloughs.
<
p>-2300 state workers lost their jobs (but not the cops).
<
p>-Huge cuts to services all up and down the budget, including to the Governor’s own staff.
<
p>-Pension reform
<
p>-MOSES and NAGE union deals freezing wages.
<
p>But only the cops think that it’s because he hates them.
<
p>Share Sacrifice. That’s what this is about.
<
p>I do have to wonder, though, when you see this kind of thing, what their real motivations are.
The funds available to cities and towns have been restricted and reduced by:
<
p>1. The hatchet of Prop 2 and 1/2 – and the failure of said Prop 2 and 1/2 to keep up with inflation as well as “starting point differentials”
<
p>2. The hyper-inflation in health insurance premiums and the use of monopolistic pricing by some health care providers and pharma companies impacting costs
<
p>3. Micro management by the Great and General Court aka Beacon Hill where cities and towns need to get permission from Beacon Hill to do things that are not restricted this way in most states
<
p>4. The lack of open space for development in the older cities and towns restricting any significant growth
<
p>Our town no longer has librarians in elementary schools, which is a cost that will be making itself known for decades. The issue is revenue, revenue structure, and micro management from Boston – not public employees albeit the perks of yesterday are all under review.
The issue is always revenue but how we spend money always has to be evaluated. Unless you want to continue increasing taxes we are left to depend on the Great and General Court and Deval Patrick for a plan on how we get through these next few years without laying off more teachers, fireman, and policeman.
<
p>Your tax everything that moves approach isn’t working.
AmberPaw pointed out that property taxes aren’t keeping up with inflation — they’re a de facto cut of taxes every single year.
<
p>Not only are they not keeping up with inflation, but energy and health care are bigger baskets of the government’s goods than the economy’s — meaning that the inflation of government services is higher than the market inflation rate.
<
p>But you knew that. You’re mantra is cut taxes when times are good, cut taxes when times are bad. It’s not a value we share.
but paychecks aren’t keeping up with inflation either. Energy and healthcare are taking a big chunk of workers’ paychecks too.
We have come to expect a government we are unwilling to pay for. What is the average cost of a Red Sox ticket? A Bruins ticket? How much money does the average family spend on monthly cable? How much money does the average family spend on its late-model SUV? Minivan? How much money does unnecessary wars cost? ($12 billion/month, that’s how much.) How much money does the latest in DOD weaponry cost? the latest defense contract with Raytheon or Halliburton?
<
p>We can afford the government we want, but it’s people like you who keep reinforcing the propaganda that we are taxed too highly, who bury the true cost of propping up the ideology of the warmongering party in power. That said, we still have one of the lowest tax burdens in the Western/developed world. Go figure.
<
p>Either you are being disingenous or ignorant. I haven’t decided which, yet.
I believe I am neither. What I am is a realist. When I say “We cannot afford the government we have come to expect” my conclusion is based solely on the fact that Deval Patrick and the Legislature WILL NOT increase taxes in an election year. That being said and I feeling like I am correct, you call your Legislators and the Governor and you start the tax increase dialog. It ain’t happening. I’ve actually said on this blog today that I don’t have a problem paying my state and local taxes; I only wish to pay more local vs. state. Sorry, but that’s how I think and that’s what I believe. I also do not want to pay any more because I DO NOT trust the Governor and the Legislature on spending issue. Again, sorry. You will note that one of the themes on here on BMG is the issue of local aid and the fact that I think my community gets screwed so forgive me if I do not care much for Deval et al. I spent three years on a school committee that was forced to do lots of layoffs. Again, I want my money staying closer to home if I have a choice, which unfortunately I do not.
<
p>As for name calling, I trust you do not speak to the students in you class that way if they dare to challenge your point of view. And again on the name calling issue, be a man (or woman) and use your name instead of lightiris. It always struck me that when calling someone an asshole it was a reasonable thing to expect that you understood who was delivering the message.
<
p>davidwhelanjr@gmail.com if you care to continue your name calling with your name.
Show me where I called you an asshole in this comment:
<
p>
<
p>You seem to have a flare for the histrionics, given your o’er-the-top response to this comment. I characterize you as one whose comments reflect disingenuousness or ignorance, primarily because I think you know better.
<
p>
<
p>Slow down, buddy. I didn’t call you an asshole and I didn’t call you any names.
<
p>Completely off-topic, however, I will add this: you’re not a child in my classroom. I have no professional or moral obligation to treat you like a child in my classroom. If you wish to equate yourself with a 15-year-old, feel free, but I know you’re not and have no obligation to treat you as such. You, as an adult, freely participate on a partisan political blog. Do you really need to hide behind my students?
<
p>Because you retreat to such a cowardly defense, however, I might add childish in addition to the list of possibilities that already include disingenuous and/or ignorant. Grow up.
I don’t want you teaching my kids.
Why don’t you just admit that you are wrong? That I didn’t call you an asshole?
<
p>Geez, what a big baby you are. There–that’s name calling for you right there.
I truly hope that you treat your students with the respect that they deserve particularly when they disagree with your point of view.
<
p>BTW, using you name adds credibility to your agrument.
<
p>Good night.
<
p>davidwhelanjr@gmail.com
I’ve no doubt lightiris respects his/her students. One way to tell is the lack of patience with a person who uses insults rather than ideas and tries to disrupt a productive group discussion. Like many troublemakers, you claim unfairness when the rules are fairly applied to your detriment.
by their contribution. I know the names of a sprinkling of anonymous contributors, not all of them liberal, and it is still their writing not their signature that has the most weight.
Mr. David Whelan of Known Email Address, you are in the minority here. That’s tough. There are a number of participants here with whom I almost always agree.
<
p>A little bit of warmth, a little less spamming, and a little more humor might help. Ad hominem comments about Lightiris’ teaching not only violate the rules of the road very, very explicitly but they make the bulk of the community impatient with you.
<
p>It’d be more fun to debate you than to have an exchange of harassments.
… you can’t own up. I take that back. I didn’t decide,… you demonstrated.
I am a former two term elected public official familiar with prop 2 1/2 and its effect on budgets. In a perfect world my preference would be to pay more local taxes and pay less to the Commonwealth. I’d be perfecrly happy with a tax neutral plan where every dollar that I do not pay the Commonwealth goes to my local community. No middle man and we do not have to worry about getting our fair share of local aid simply because we do not need it. How about we amend 2 1/2 and replace it with 3 1/2 or even 4 1/2?
<
p>By the way, if you want to make the case that we need to increase taxes, particularly taxes paid to the Commonwealth, then you and I do not share the same values.
Are the biggest component of municipal government expenditures. These components have continued to outpace general inflation levels and the increase in property tax revenue collections. And this even without accounting for the money that should be set aside to cover pensions and post retirement medical benefits. Yet, municipalities kept granting contracts that had total costs that far exceeded the property tax revenue growth rate. This left the vast majority of municipalities reliant on the state to provide local aid to make up the difference. Better yet, local aid had to keep increasing otherwise there would be a shortfall.
<
p>In the near term, municipalities were able to make up the difference by deferring funding of pensions, deferring funding of post retirement health care and, in some cases, passing property tax overrides.
<
p>Now we find ourselves in a position where the property tax revenue growth is fixed, the state is cutting back on local aid disbursements and we have all these contractual agreements in place for which we suddenly find ourselves short of cash.
<
p>Unfortunately, there is no simple solution to the problem facing us. It will take many different avenues to achieve a balance but we need to look at areas such as:
<
p>1) Revenue sources for municipalities that are stable. I like the idea of a prop 2 1/2 potentially indexed to inflation. This could mean 5% growth some years, but less than 2.5% some other years.
<
p>2) Rationalization of salaries and benefits for municipal employees. Yes, we have had pension reform to some degree, but there is more that can be done and we have yet to even touch the health care benefits. I would also argue that we must fund the cost of these benefits annually with no deferral to future years. Unless we recognize the true cost of what we are promising we will never know how much we are really spending.
<
p>3) Regionalization of municipal resources. Libraries, schools, fire and police (command and control not officers) and many other services should be looked at for regionalization. This would help reduce the overhead and administrative costs while providing more resources for the people on the ground who are the face of the departments.
<
p>4) State mandates – If Beacon Hill wants to pass a mandate then they have to fund it. It is not acceptable for them to tell you to do something and not provide the resources to do it (yeah, this goes for the federal level too).
<
p>This is but a quick short list. We have much to get done and nothing should be off the table. Revenue alone will not solve the problem. Nor will expense cuts. We need a bit of both combined with some serious re-engineering of state and local government. It will get done because we have no choice. The only question is how much pain results.
<
p>Unemployment officially around 9% means less state income tax revenue nevermind the problems created by underemplyment problem.
<
p>No one wants to hear it but the train left the station a long time ago and the Commonwealth and its cities and towns needs to reinvent how it delivers services sooner rather than later. Since the political realitiy is that no tax increases will happen in an election year then you are looking at cutting services, payroll, and/or benefits.
<
p>
The excesses in police pay, perks and pensions you refer to didn’t happen automatically. All of this misuse of taxpayers dollars, especially considering the economic plight of those same taxplayers, can be laid at the doorstep of a overly compliant legislature.
<
p>For years past our public servants on Beacon Hill forgot the taxpayers they were supposed to serve and passed legislation for public sector unions that went far beyond reasonable (yes, there are reasonable standards) levels of public compensation.
<
p>A major plank in Baker’s campaign is pension reform – beyond what Patrick has started. The public sector pension obligation for town, cities and states is overwhelming taxpayers ability to pay and stalling an economic recovery. Democrats will ignore the pension money vacuum at the party’s own risk.