The Herald had conducted a review of Charlie Baker’s Big Dig financing scheme.
This is when you think the Herald would defend Baker, instead they detailed how nearly 800 million in toll hikes can be attributed to Baker’s decision to borrow against future Federal Highway funds and more importantly a 1.3 billion borrowing plan from the Turnpike Authority that was to be paid by toll increases.
The Big Dig financing plan crafted in 1996 by GOP gubernatorial hopeful Charlie Baker has soaked Hub motorists for nearly $800 million in toll hikes – and will likely lead to more increases as the urban money pit won’t be paid off until 2038, a Herald review found.
In addition to borrowing $1.5 billion off future federal highway aid, the two-pronged plan called for $1.3 billion in borrowing from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and Massport, which would be paid back through higher tolls.
It will be another 28 years before we finally pay off the debt plan and tax hikes that Baker put in place the last time he was in charge of the budget. For all Baker’s talk about fiscal responsibility, actions speak louder than words.
topper says
BMG contortions aside, will we be seeing any “coverage” of the good congressman Tierney and/or the tax-challenged Ms. Bump on this site? I detect that they’ve been in the news a bit over the last day or so but I can’t find much here about it?
david says
that you are unfamiliar with the “scroll” or “down arrow” button on your keyboard.
apricot says
I regularly see conservative tea baggy types conflating fees/tolls with “taxes”.
johnd says
During these last few weeks you will very little to NO negative remarks about any Democrat running for office on this site (except by contrarians like me and a few others). Let that sunshine take care of the mold and fungus of our elected officials… just like Mary Z wants to do.
hoyapaul says
A blog called Blue Mass Group dedicated to progressive commentary does not devote its time to bashing Democrats and progressives.
<
p>And yet stories like the Tierney story and a few criticizing Obama actually appear on at BMG! That’s more than I can say about RMG, where — guess what — you won’t find many negative remarks about Republicans or conservatives.
kathy says
I think you got your colors mixed up. If you want teabagging and butt-kissing adulation of everything Republican, you want to go to RED Mass Group.
bostonshepherd says
I think the Herald is appealing to voter discontent with the general fiscal state of affairs. The Big Dig, and its financing, was a collaborative effort by state government and not solely Charlie Baker’s invention.
<
p>Was not the Pike enabled by the Lege to finance the project? Or was the Big Dig a uniquely Republican screw-up? Its DNA goes back many political generations, maybe to Sargent or even Volpe. (A pal of mine at MassHighways said he saw memos and some sketches of the Big Dig dated in 1968. 1968!)
<
p>I think given the current likely voter sentiment, there’s anger at the perceived poor fiscal state of the state, so there’s less blame landing on Baker individually than on “the process” generally.
<
p>Perhaps the question to ask — and the Herald’s likely influence — is who is better suited to fix the problem?
centralmassdad says
Government investment in infrastructure: that was the Democrat’s vision, led by then Governor Dukakis. Anything bad: Republican.
somervilletom says
A major “government investment in infrastructure” had to happen. Both of you seem to have forgotten that the Central Artery was falling down. It was carrying far more than its rated capacity, it was long past its useful lifetime, and it was quite literally falling apart.
<
p>The alternative to the Big Dig was to somehow replace the Central Artery. It would have been more costly than the Big Dig, taken longer to do, disrupted the city more, and we would have ended up with a brand-new Central Artery that was carrying more than twice its rated capacity (because there wasn’t physical space to add lanes, especially at entrance and exit ramps).
<
p>All parties at the table agreed that that the Big Dig was the most cost-effective alternative.
<
p>The oversight of the Big Dig construction project happened during the Republican watch. That’s just the facts.
<
p>Was there a Republican alternative to the Big Dig? Can you point me at any legislative proposals, campaign documents, anything, to highlight the better idea that the Republicans offered?
christy says
But Charlie Baker did the best any mere mortal could have done to keep the project going, 7,000 trades and support personnel working with what he had to work with. Sure, he could have shut it down and left a huge hole in the Capital City, not complied with Air Quality standards and just said its not my fault. But he got it done. Had Governors Weld and Cellucci given him the real number that they knew to be $14 BILLION on December 2, 1994, then maybe just maybe the Feds would not have capped their contribution to $8.549 Billion. But weld and celluci never told Charlie the real number. If you challenge these facts go to the Inspector Generals Report on the Big Dig March 2001. its all there. Charlie did not know the real information, and got the project done. its not pretty but he got it done.
somervilletom says
I think the point is that it was REPUBLICAN Governor Weld and REPUBLICAN governor Cellucci, in 1994, sticking BILLIONS of dollars of debt to the public. That’s aside from the cushy insider stuff going on between Governor Weld and Bechtel, especially regarding Governor Weld’s own political ambitions at the time.
<
p>Today’s Republican party? Same circus, different clowns.
johnd says
I’m sure BMGers will love this remark by the Govermor since you want more of our hard earned dollars but how will the rest of MA voters react to this news…
<
p>
apricot says
Predictably?
Don’t raise my taxes and keep your hands off my services?
johnd says
apricot says
But you’ve got “tea party” in your siggy.
I assume you’re part of the deluded Tea Party crowd that’s really pissed off at the government but loves all the stuff that the gov’t gives them.
<
p>Or maybe you’re a purist who ACTUALLY think gov’t really has no place in civil society and people should pay out of pocket for things like, oh, I dunno, fire protection/fire fighters.
johnd says
I don’t know if I’d even call myself a Tea Party protestor, I just love them, their zeal and their “enough of this BS” attitude.
<
p>I am always a little happy to read remarks by people like you who want to degrade these patriots as “deluded” just because they happen to think differently than you. Who happen to think more like Americans have traditionally thought instead of the new Obama patriots like yourself.
<
p>BTW… the Social Security Administration’s inspector general just released a reports showing 72,000 deceased people received checks from the stimulus program. Great work Obama. Unemployment is at 10%+, the deficit is skyrocketing and your people are sending checks to 72,000 dead people… that we know of.
somervilletom says
Do you mean this story?
<
p>So let’s see: 72,000 dead people received a check for $250 each, totaling $18M. Oh my.
<
p>To quote the late Paul Harvey, now for the rest of the story.
<
p>The same stimulus program sent checks to fifty two million Americans. That’s a total of thirteen billion dollars.
<
p>So 99.86% of the stimulus checks went to their rightful recipients. Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me if more than 0.2% of the checks were lost or mangled by the post office, offsetting the screw-ups.
<
p>Sorry John, but there’s no “there” there.
apricot says
You mean, “I want to keep Government out of my Medicare. Cut taxes!”?
<
p>Look, maybe you’re not one of these Tea Party Patriots who simultaneously holds inconsistent/incompatible views (“taxed enough already!!! don’t you dare touch my social security!!!”).
<
p>In the aggregate, however, “Tea Party” has meant very little by way of substance, just reactive rants about “taxes/spending”.
<
p>Hey all of us can complain and worry about spending. But it takes a little extra effort to confront our fiscal problems and social/infrastructural obligations with maturity and reason. Show me such a Tea Party–heck, even a plain ol’ Republican–with that kind of hard thinking, and I’ll give props to that Individual. But not til I see more complex rhetoric and positions from the GROUP will I revise my conclusion that Tea Party Conservatives are full of hot air and no thought.
<
p>
johnd says
<
p>… if your answer to every problem wasn’t tax the “man” and give more money to people “in need”. Do you really think all the people in need are really in need? It may be wrong to point to some slackers on a program and decry the program is a failure but it is just as narrow minded to point to people who are truly in need to justify any program which has abuses. Why not fix the problems and continue to help people who really need it.
<
p>I’m guilty of critiquing in this manner so maybe we need to start looking for middle ground.
apricot says
?
Where did I say that?!
<
p>Of COURSE where there’s abuse and fraud and excess, that should be addressed. Who would say otherwise?!
<
p>The HOW to address it is the sticky wicket. Republicans I talk with seem to have some very predictable and narrow responses–some variation of these, amended for whatever particular situation (WIC, education loans, Soc Sec, medicare…whatever):
<
p>– Make ’em take a drug test and cut ’em off if they’re using!!
<
p>- Did they save enough money to take care of this massive expense? No? Then it’s their fault; why should I have to pay for their stupidity?
<
p>- I’ve seen people driving Cadillacs and eating bon bons while collecting unemployment!!!
<
p>- Cut the program–how about individuals taking RESPONSIBILITY for their OWN lives and not expecting me to pay for it with MY hard work?
<
p>- “Slash” the program to the minimum and only help those TRULY in need
<
p>None of these, in practicality, works or serves a greater purpose (not having a society where we trip over homeless grandmas and illiterate working age people who don’t know how to read a pie chart, for example).
<
p>Abuse, waste, fraud–find it, fix it, eradicate it.
<
p>Just like when we see abuse, waste, fraud in business (Republicans love Businesses, I have found). You know, when there are wasteful parties with ice sculptures of Michelangelo’s David peeing out vodka, or wasteful abuses of the corporate helicopter to get to midtown for a wasteful lunch, yada yada. Or wastefully massive salaries for CEOs who have overseen the plummeting of a corporation’s stock or even the bailing out of said corp by the government, etc etc.
<
p>Baby, bathwater.
<
p>Republicans, tea party, etc.–all they say is some version of “SLASH IT! CUT IT!! STRANGLE IT! SHRINK IT!!”
<
p>Not helpful, because in most cases, more problems result which are unacceptable (grandmas sleeping on the street, etc).
<
p>It IS however very USEFUL to riling up reactionary anger to drive the Angry Man vote to the polls to vote in Republicans who are mouthing the “slash it” rhetoric and ready to put their deregulatory, trickle-down theories back into place. Well played, Koch brothers. Well played!
shillelaghlaw says
A progressive tax rate would have to be done by Constitutional amendment, which the voters have to approve. It’s already failed four or five times.
johnd says
MA voters have the right to know the man running for Governor for the Democratic party supports a progressive income tax for MA state taxes.
<
p>Let me repeat…
<
p>Governor Deval Patrick supports progressive state income taxes for MA residents!
<
p>Whether or not it would ever pass here is immaterial.
david says
A progressive income tax is a much better system. That’s why almost every other state and the feds use it.
sean-roche says
We built a system of roads and tunnels designed for motorists. It’s being paid for by motorists.
<
p>Apart from the inequity of raising tolls on commuters from the west and leaving the north/south commuters a free ride, where’s the policy fail here?
<
p>As a general proposition, tolls should be higher across the board (and differentiated for peak v off-peak travel).
christopher says
If we can make up the difference the ideal would be to eliminate tolls and have the Pike covered by general revenue like every other road. Public services and accomodations are supposed to be open to everyone without specific fees attached.