Truth to Larry

Here's a little observation to Mr. McDermott, publisher of the Springfield Republican newspapers. His editorial is below my comment which may be found at Masslive.

COMMENTS (1)Post a commentPosted by kcnorbut on 04/19/09 at 8:50AM

Mr. McDermott,

It would be helpful if the Republican would hold the western MA delegation including Congressmen and Senators accountable for the state and federal budgets. Specifically, you list four areas of change in your editorial "No business as usual in BayState budget", without any substantive recommendations to achieve those goals. Many unfunded/underfunded mandates are generated by Congress, particularly those in the critical areas of education, environment and public health. Without inclusion of that piece of the budget puzzle, state and local budget issues are perceived to exist in a vacuum; which is a false premise. To assume that local government can pay for the Quinn Bill, or not if they want, it is simply naive. I must assume that you are aware of the chaos that would bring to local budgets and collective bargaining. Are you suggesting that police officer pay can simply drop by tens of thousands of dollars without any consequence? The state legislature created the method for increasing police officer salaries, they must design an equitable solution to reform the system. Dumping the problem created by legislators on local government (which has much less fiscal and personnel resources) is wrong. What does change "public and agency expectations" mean?

State officials including the legislative leadership of Speaker DeLeo and President Murray need to be held accountable for their continued protection of Beacon Hill's budget bloat at the expense of local aid. Special interest groups and connected individuals have a stranglehold on state and federal legislative bodies. This "leadership" has not even had the will to close telecom tax loopholes, while the average household support of these corporations increases exponentially on an annual basis.

It would be helpful for your paper to use the power of information to disclose to the public what legislators actually do for their pay. Why did the Republican not question the western MA delegation when it almost unanimously rejected Governor Patrick's proposed gas tax hike with what it plans to submit for a solution to the horrific condition of our infrastructure? Why has the Republican not held the entire western MA delegation accountable for allowing the infrastructure in the region to decay and crumble over the past 2-3 decades? Why does the Republican not challenge the entire western MA delegation to take leadership in proposing solutions that are favorable to our region and quit the whining that western MA is not getting a "fair shake"? Why did the Republican not expose the utter lack of productivity of the legislature from August 1, 2008 through March 2009 (informal session and do nothing first quarter of the year)? If most of us did not work or underperformed for that length of time we would not have been paid and certainly fired.

We need leaders, not followers.

Kathleen Conley Norbut
Monson

No business as usual in Bay State budget
by Larry McDermott - Publisher, The Republican Sunday April 19, 2009, 5:00 AM
Why is it that often the simplest things are the most difficult for us to understand and accept?

The commonwealth is broke. That's right. Massachusetts is broke. The money that it collects and puts in the bank isn't enough to cover the bills. Right away, someone is going to say that the state isn't broke. It has a "rainy day" fund. That's what you and I would call a "savings account." That's right, there is a savings account, but that doesn't mean we aren't broke.

This day of reckoning has been coming for several years, and there have been numerous warnings by third-party observers such as the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Those observers also have been pleading with the state for years to make dramatic change by reducing its expenses, but that didn't happen.

Now that we are broke, the pain is going to be much greater than it would have been if the warnings had been heeded by the Legislature.

Two years ago - almost to the day - state House lawmakers were getting ready to debate their own version of the state budget, just as they are today. The House's budget proposal was to spend $26.7 billion. That included all of the earmarked appropriations for specific programs all over the state. Earmarked programs are what legislators consider the bread and butter in their home districts, and that's what gets them re-elected. Two years ago, Gov. Deval L. Patrick's proposed state budget largely avoided those earmarks.

The House ignored the governor's proposals as well as the warning of Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, who said at that time that it was important to "hold the line on spending and (reject) the temptation to add to the bottom line in any significant way because we are already drawing on reserves."

As governor, W. Mitt Romney also urged legislators to drop the earmarks, to no avail. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee then, state Rep. Robert A. DeLeo, met with our editorial board back then and made no apologies about earmarks being added back to the state budget. He said they were needed for economic development efforts and for organizations that serve children, the homeless, veterans, and others in need.

Fast-forward two years to today and another state House budget has landed on the kitchen table, but this one is more like a bowl of chicken noodle soup without the chicken, and almost everyone sitting at the table is in a fist-pounding mood because the earmarks are gone. The new House Ways and Means Committee chairman is Rep. Charles A. Murphy of Burlington, and he met with The Republican's editorial board Thursday. With him was state Rep. Stephen Kulik of Worthington, who ranks No. 3 on Murphy's committee.

The House budget on the table now, without the earmarks, is $27.44 billion. Two years ago, the House budget was $26.7 billion with earmarks.

"In our view, this is a budget based in reality," Murphy told the board. But, he admitted, hundreds of amendments were being filed even as we spoke that, if approved, would restore the earmarks. This time, he said, that can't happen.

Murphy was talking like a man who understood there couldn't be any chicken in the chicken noodle soup because we didn't have any chicken. He was moving faster before the editorial board than a man juggling red hot coals. He said:

Quinn Bill funding? No longer a sustainable model. Let the cities and towns pay for it if they want it.

Regionalization? Stop talking about it. Do it.

Unfunded mandates? Stop them.

Public and agency expectations? Change them.

In other words, he said, the state has to change how it does business.

Already, Murphy said, he was being pilloried for his comments, with some people saying "lives would be lost" and that this would be on his hands.

As with everything, time will tell whether Murphy and his boss, now House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, will stick to their guns or drop those red hot coals.