There’s an interesting editorial in the Boston Herald today entitled, “State seeing double?”
The editorial talks about an economic development summit Governor Patrick sponsored earlier this week. One of the Governor’s plans is to create a new small-business loan program. But, as the Herald points out, there are already two other state programs doing the same thing.
The point of the editorial is that in these tough fiscal times, state government can’t afford to be duplicating its efforts. We need to take an inventory of existing state programs and overhaul them first before starting new initiatives.
I think that’s a good approach. Basically, we need to reset state government and take a fresh look at how we’re spending money, delivering services, etc. Having that sort of a master plan is critical if we’re going to come up with creative ways to get through this fiscal crisis.
What do you think? Please feel free to post a comment below to get the conversation started.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Statement of Representative Karyn Polito on Budget Cuts Announced by Governor Patrick Today
With a budget gap that has now reached $600 million in Massachusetts, it appears that Governor Patrick has finally decided it is time do the necessary thing by making substantial cuts in state spending, while preserving local aid and protecting vulnerable citizens in our state.
These are not easy decisions to make, but the poor economy combined with years of overspending and overestimated revenues by state government is forcing our hand. And unfortunately, Massachusetts residents have already had to pay the price in increased taxes because we waited until now to make these spending reductions.
But now is not the time to place blame or point the finger. We should use the predicament in which we find ourselves now as a lesson for the future. Instead of being reactionary every time revenues go up or down, we need to reset the way Massachusetts government works and delivers core services. We need to have better foresight when it comes to our fiscal planning so we can set more reasonable benchmarks. We need to proactively work to streamline government operations, realize savings and efficiencies, and bring state employee benefits in line with the private sector. We need to be creative and inventive to identify innovative ways to better position our state for economic recovery and job creation.
These are not easy decisions to make, but the poor economy combined with years of overspending and overestimated revenues by state government is forcing our hand. And unfortunately, Massachusetts residents have already had to pay the price in increased taxes because we waited until now to make these spending reductions.
But now is not the time to place blame or point the finger. We should use the predicament in which we find ourselves now as a lesson for the future. Instead of being reactionary every time revenues go up or down, we need to reset the way Massachusetts government works and delivers core services. We need to have better foresight when it comes to our fiscal planning so we can set more reasonable benchmarks. We need to proactively work to streamline government operations, realize savings and efficiencies, and bring state employee benefits in line with the private sector. We need to be creative and inventive to identify innovative ways to better position our state for economic recovery and job creation.
Thought of the Day - 10/29/2009
According to today’s papers (Globe story, Herald story), Governor Patrick is poised to announce a series of budget cuts this afternoon that are designed to bridge an estimated $600 million budget gap this year.
Published reports indicate that everything could be on the table when the Governor makes these cuts, including deep reductions in spending on social service programs and cutbacks in local aid.
The Governor appears to be saying that he has no other choice but to make these cuts because furloughs of executive branch managers will not save enough money, and because state unions have been unwilling to make concessions to cut costs.
I think it’s necessary to make cuts in our state budget; in fact, I think that spending reductions are long overdue. But I disagree that balancing our budget should require us to provide less support to local services or to the most vulnerable people in our communities who are most in need of assistance. Those are the last places we should look. Instead, we should be focused on finding additional savings and efficiencies within the budget through reform.
Even with the Governor’s cuts, Massachusetts taxpayers still will be spending more than $26 billion a year to run state government. Cuts in administrative functions have been modest at best. Reforms also have been sparse, and what few have been implemented have taken too long to be effective. State payroll has continued to increase and new programs have continued to find their way into our spending plans. And in order to support this spending, Massachusetts taxpayers have been asked to pay more taxes and expect to receive fewer core government services. We need to do better.
I will be watching Governor Patrick’s announcement very carefully to see what happens in this latest round of cuts. I’ll post an update here later this afternoon to let you know what he says and what I think about it.
"What do you expect Governor Patrick to say this afternoon? What do you HOPE he'll say?" Please feel free to post a comment below.
Published reports indicate that everything could be on the table when the Governor makes these cuts, including deep reductions in spending on social service programs and cutbacks in local aid.
The Governor appears to be saying that he has no other choice but to make these cuts because furloughs of executive branch managers will not save enough money, and because state unions have been unwilling to make concessions to cut costs.
I think it’s necessary to make cuts in our state budget; in fact, I think that spending reductions are long overdue. But I disagree that balancing our budget should require us to provide less support to local services or to the most vulnerable people in our communities who are most in need of assistance. Those are the last places we should look. Instead, we should be focused on finding additional savings and efficiencies within the budget through reform.
Even with the Governor’s cuts, Massachusetts taxpayers still will be spending more than $26 billion a year to run state government. Cuts in administrative functions have been modest at best. Reforms also have been sparse, and what few have been implemented have taken too long to be effective. State payroll has continued to increase and new programs have continued to find their way into our spending plans. And in order to support this spending, Massachusetts taxpayers have been asked to pay more taxes and expect to receive fewer core government services. We need to do better.
I will be watching Governor Patrick’s announcement very carefully to see what happens in this latest round of cuts. I’ll post an update here later this afternoon to let you know what he says and what I think about it.
"What do you expect Governor Patrick to say this afternoon? What do you HOPE he'll say?" Please feel free to post a comment below.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thought of the Day - 10/28/2009
An editorial in the Worcester Telegram today highlights a great example of how, in its haste to look as though it is “doing something,” the Legislature can sometimes pass laws that have unintended and negative consequences.
In response to a slew of ethical indisgressions by Beacon Hill leaders, the Legislature this year passed an ethics reform law that was supposed to restore integrity to the institution by banning public officials from accepting gifts, increasing the penalties for breaking ethics laws and other changes. These were positive steps forward.
However, the legislation also includes a requirement that cities and towns must subject every one of their full-time and part-time employees—including volunteers—to take a yearly online test that is supposed to teach them the state’s conflict-of-interest rules.
Since this law passed, I have heard from local town officials who are very concerned about the prospect of taking employees away from their jobs to complete this task. They are also concerned about the potential cost of meeting this requirement during a time when cities and towns barely have enough in their coffers to make ends meet.
Throughout Massachusetts, city and town officials are struggling to find places to cut and ways to streamline their operations so that they can continue providing very essential services to Massachusetts residents. It is in the state’s best interest to offer a helping hand in that endeavor, not make it more difficult by instituting unfunded mandates such as the new online ethics test requirement.
For too long, the state has called on local communities to bear the brunt of tough fiscal times, while at the same time increasing burdens on them in other areas. Local aid payments to cities and towns have decreased and could go even lower in the coming weeks. Legislation to provide financial relief to municipalities, including several bills I’ve filed myself, have remained in committee and have not seen action on the House and Senate floors. There has been no pension reform and no changes to onerous public bidding laws.
Sooner or later, state government will have to deal with the consequences of this behavior toward cities and towns. I hope that through the continued advocacy of city and town officials, myself, and like-minded legislators, we can turn this around.
Thank you to all those who posted comments on the blog yesterday. What do you think about this issue?
In response to a slew of ethical indisgressions by Beacon Hill leaders, the Legislature this year passed an ethics reform law that was supposed to restore integrity to the institution by banning public officials from accepting gifts, increasing the penalties for breaking ethics laws and other changes. These were positive steps forward.
However, the legislation also includes a requirement that cities and towns must subject every one of their full-time and part-time employees—including volunteers—to take a yearly online test that is supposed to teach them the state’s conflict-of-interest rules.
Since this law passed, I have heard from local town officials who are very concerned about the prospect of taking employees away from their jobs to complete this task. They are also concerned about the potential cost of meeting this requirement during a time when cities and towns barely have enough in their coffers to make ends meet.
Throughout Massachusetts, city and town officials are struggling to find places to cut and ways to streamline their operations so that they can continue providing very essential services to Massachusetts residents. It is in the state’s best interest to offer a helping hand in that endeavor, not make it more difficult by instituting unfunded mandates such as the new online ethics test requirement.
For too long, the state has called on local communities to bear the brunt of tough fiscal times, while at the same time increasing burdens on them in other areas. Local aid payments to cities and towns have decreased and could go even lower in the coming weeks. Legislation to provide financial relief to municipalities, including several bills I’ve filed myself, have remained in committee and have not seen action on the House and Senate floors. There has been no pension reform and no changes to onerous public bidding laws.
Sooner or later, state government will have to deal with the consequences of this behavior toward cities and towns. I hope that through the continued advocacy of city and town officials, myself, and like-minded legislators, we can turn this around.
Thank you to all those who posted comments on the blog yesterday. What do you think about this issue?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Thought of the Day - 10/27/2009
According to today's Boston Globe, Middlesex County District Attorney Gerald Leone is going to encourage the Legislature to make it easier for sexually dangerous predators to be committed to prison.
Right now, offenders have the ability to unilaterally waive their right to a trial by jury when the court decides whether or not to commit them to custody on the basis of their dangerousness and likelihood to reoffend. Under Leone's proposal, prosecutors would have to agree to a jury-waived trial before sending the case to the judge. His rationale is that Middlesex County juries have been almost twice as likely as judges to find reason to commit sex offenders to custody over the past decade, so giving prosecutors the power to keep cases in the hands of the jury increases the odds that dangerous offenders will be committed.
I'm encouraged that there is renewed attention being paid to this issue, because I think we need better protections in place to deal with sexual predators. To start, I think we need better monitoring of convicted sex offenders, and we should require judges to make written findings relative to all sex crimes and GPS monitoring requirements. That would make the process more accountable and transparent to the general public. I also support Melissa's Bill, which is the subject of a compelling letter to the editor in today's Boston Herald. Additionally, we should have prison sentences for first offenses of rape of a child or sexual assault, which is something I have advocated for the past several years.
I find DA Leone's statistics alarming, especially in light of the recent case involving David Flavell and his alleged sexual assault at Mass. General Hospital. It's clear that we need better ways of dealing with sexually dangerous offenders. I look forward to hearing his arguments in favor of this bill and I hope it will be debated by the Legislature soon as part of a broader initiative.
We need to start taking decisive action against sex offenders to prevent them from reoffending. When people like David Flavell, Michael Gentile and Corey Saunders demonstrate an inability to function in society because of their strong likelihood to commit another violent sexual offense, I think we have a moral imperative to take them off the streets and put them behind bars so as to protect the public.
That's my opinion. What do you think? Feel free to post a comment below or to e-mail me at karyn@karynpolito.com.
Right now, offenders have the ability to unilaterally waive their right to a trial by jury when the court decides whether or not to commit them to custody on the basis of their dangerousness and likelihood to reoffend. Under Leone's proposal, prosecutors would have to agree to a jury-waived trial before sending the case to the judge. His rationale is that Middlesex County juries have been almost twice as likely as judges to find reason to commit sex offenders to custody over the past decade, so giving prosecutors the power to keep cases in the hands of the jury increases the odds that dangerous offenders will be committed.
I'm encouraged that there is renewed attention being paid to this issue, because I think we need better protections in place to deal with sexual predators. To start, I think we need better monitoring of convicted sex offenders, and we should require judges to make written findings relative to all sex crimes and GPS monitoring requirements. That would make the process more accountable and transparent to the general public. I also support Melissa's Bill, which is the subject of a compelling letter to the editor in today's Boston Herald. Additionally, we should have prison sentences for first offenses of rape of a child or sexual assault, which is something I have advocated for the past several years.
I find DA Leone's statistics alarming, especially in light of the recent case involving David Flavell and his alleged sexual assault at Mass. General Hospital. It's clear that we need better ways of dealing with sexually dangerous offenders. I look forward to hearing his arguments in favor of this bill and I hope it will be debated by the Legislature soon as part of a broader initiative.
We need to start taking decisive action against sex offenders to prevent them from reoffending. When people like David Flavell, Michael Gentile and Corey Saunders demonstrate an inability to function in society because of their strong likelihood to commit another violent sexual offense, I think we have a moral imperative to take them off the streets and put them behind bars so as to protect the public.
That's my opinion. What do you think? Feel free to post a comment below or to e-mail me at karyn@karynpolito.com.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Thought of the Day - 10/26/2009
There's a front page story in the Boston Globe today that says the economy is forecast to grow by about 2 percent over the next year, but over the same time employers are expecting to cut about 37,000 more jobs in this state.
It's great news that the economy might be on the rebound, but that's cold comfort to people who have lost jobs or who are about to be laid off. Unemployment in this state is already at its highest level since the 1970's. Finding a job is difficult because, aside from the fact that many companies are still cutting back, many others lack enough confidence in the economy to start hiring again, even if their fiscal situation is improving.
An economic recovery in Massachusetts won’t mean much to average people until it results in jobs coming back to our state, and that's going to take some time and some effort. For its part, state government needs to do whatever it can to help the business community and boost confidence. We need a business policy that is smart and sustainable to lure companies back to the Bay State and to encourage them to stay and grow here.
It's great news that the economy might be on the rebound, but that's cold comfort to people who have lost jobs or who are about to be laid off. Unemployment in this state is already at its highest level since the 1970's. Finding a job is difficult because, aside from the fact that many companies are still cutting back, many others lack enough confidence in the economy to start hiring again, even if their fiscal situation is improving.
An economic recovery in Massachusetts won’t mean much to average people until it results in jobs coming back to our state, and that's going to take some time and some effort. For its part, state government needs to do whatever it can to help the business community and boost confidence. We need a business policy that is smart and sustainable to lure companies back to the Bay State and to encourage them to stay and grow here.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Statement of Rep. Polito Regarding Sex Offenders and a Recent Attack at Mass. General Hospital
It’s a story line that keeps repeating itself: a high-level sex offender is caught committing a sexual assault, and a look back at his past shows that he has a lengthy record of sexual violence.
In the most recent incident, the alleged attacker has been in and out of courtrooms since 1996, and was twice deemed by judges to not be a threat to the public.
We need to stop playing “catch-and-release” with sex offenders here in Massachusetts. That responsibility lies with our judicial system to exercise better discretion, and also with the Legislature to enact tougher laws to deal with these violent criminals.
Requiring a hearing and written findings of fact for judges relative to all sex crimes and GPS monitoring requirements would make the process more accountable and transparent to the general public. We also should have prison sentences for first offenses of rape of a child or sexual assault, which is something I have advocated for the past several years.
In the most recent incident, the alleged attacker has been in and out of courtrooms since 1996, and was twice deemed by judges to not be a threat to the public.
We need to stop playing “catch-and-release” with sex offenders here in Massachusetts. That responsibility lies with our judicial system to exercise better discretion, and also with the Legislature to enact tougher laws to deal with these violent criminals.
Requiring a hearing and written findings of fact for judges relative to all sex crimes and GPS monitoring requirements would make the process more accountable and transparent to the general public. We also should have prison sentences for first offenses of rape of a child or sexual assault, which is something I have advocated for the past several years.
Thought of the Day - 10/23/2009
There were three stories in the papers today that caught my eye. Even though they appear totally unrelated on the surface, there is actually an important - and unfortunate - link between them.
The first is a story in today's Boston Herald that a woman was seriously injured during a sexual assault that occurred inside a bathroom at Massachusetts General Hospital. The alleged perpetrator is a notorious Level 3 sex offender who has more than a dozen sex crime charges on his record, but who nevertheless was roaming the hallways of the hospital, apparently unmonitored.
The second is a story in today's Boston Herald that the State Police Association of Massachusetts recommended a plan to Governor Patrick to save $13 million a year by trimming the number of management positions within the state police. According to the story, the Patrick administration has not acted on the plan - despite its current calls for state employee unions to make sacrifices and implement furloughs to bridge
budget gaps.
The third piece is an editorial in today's Worcester Telegram that points out how a pilot program allowing AAA members to renew licenses and car registrations at certain club offices instead of at the Registry of Motor Vehicles is in jeopardy of going away. The Legislature is currently rejecting a plan to extend the program due to efforts headed by Senator Pacheco, who is famous for opposing efforts to outsource state jobs to private entities.
In my view, the common thread running between these stories is that they point to ways Massachusetts political leaders have been slow to react to serious problems facing state residents, and how they have been even slower to implement reforms that would help our state in its current fiscal problems.
For example, I have filed legislation that would require expanded monitoring of sex offenders using GPS bracelets. So far, despite my advocacy, the Legislature has failed to take any action on the bill. And yet we see cases like the one at Mass. General Hospital all too often in the headlines.
Likewise, I find it troubling that the Patrick administration has not considered the recommendations of the State Police Association as a way to save money. I'm not familiar with the report itself, but it seems to me that any credible proposal to save money through restructuring and cost savings should at least get ample consideration by the administration before we cut programs that help the vulnerable and funding for local aid.
The same is true for the plan to have AAA process license and registration renewals, which eases burdens on the RMV and would allow us to realize budget savings in that area through privatization.
It's unclear whether any law would have prevented the attack at Mass. General Hospital, just as I'm sure there are good and bad reasons for cutting management positions at the state police and privatizing license and registration renewals. But the right place to answer those questions is inside the Massachusetts Legislature, where politicians are supposed to consider ideas like the ones above, subject them to public input and expert scrutiny, debate them, and eventually vote on their merit. But in a Legislature that is mostly concerned about itself, that's simply not happening.
There seems to be no appetite for reform in the Massachusetts Legislature, whether it involves matters of public safety or budget cuts. And unfortunately, at the end of the day, it's the people of Massachusetts who ultimately lose out.
The first is a story in today's Boston Herald that a woman was seriously injured during a sexual assault that occurred inside a bathroom at Massachusetts General Hospital. The alleged perpetrator is a notorious Level 3 sex offender who has more than a dozen sex crime charges on his record, but who nevertheless was roaming the hallways of the hospital, apparently unmonitored.
The second is a story in today's Boston Herald that the State Police Association of Massachusetts recommended a plan to Governor Patrick to save $13 million a year by trimming the number of management positions within the state police. According to the story, the Patrick administration has not acted on the plan - despite its current calls for state employee unions to make sacrifices and implement furloughs to bridge
budget gaps.
The third piece is an editorial in today's Worcester Telegram that points out how a pilot program allowing AAA members to renew licenses and car registrations at certain club offices instead of at the Registry of Motor Vehicles is in jeopardy of going away. The Legislature is currently rejecting a plan to extend the program due to efforts headed by Senator Pacheco, who is famous for opposing efforts to outsource state jobs to private entities.
In my view, the common thread running between these stories is that they point to ways Massachusetts political leaders have been slow to react to serious problems facing state residents, and how they have been even slower to implement reforms that would help our state in its current fiscal problems.
For example, I have filed legislation that would require expanded monitoring of sex offenders using GPS bracelets. So far, despite my advocacy, the Legislature has failed to take any action on the bill. And yet we see cases like the one at Mass. General Hospital all too often in the headlines.
Likewise, I find it troubling that the Patrick administration has not considered the recommendations of the State Police Association as a way to save money. I'm not familiar with the report itself, but it seems to me that any credible proposal to save money through restructuring and cost savings should at least get ample consideration by the administration before we cut programs that help the vulnerable and funding for local aid.
The same is true for the plan to have AAA process license and registration renewals, which eases burdens on the RMV and would allow us to realize budget savings in that area through privatization.
It's unclear whether any law would have prevented the attack at Mass. General Hospital, just as I'm sure there are good and bad reasons for cutting management positions at the state police and privatizing license and registration renewals. But the right place to answer those questions is inside the Massachusetts Legislature, where politicians are supposed to consider ideas like the ones above, subject them to public input and expert scrutiny, debate them, and eventually vote on their merit. But in a Legislature that is mostly concerned about itself, that's simply not happening.
There seems to be no appetite for reform in the Massachusetts Legislature, whether it involves matters of public safety or budget cuts. And unfortunately, at the end of the day, it's the people of Massachusetts who ultimately lose out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)