Lawrence Under Water

Yesterday’s Ways and Means hearing failed to produce a consensus on what to do with Governor Patrick’s proposed $35 million bailout bill for the City Of Lawrence. But one thing’s for certain: when the bill does come up for a vote, it must include stronger safeguards to protect the state’s taxpayers, including the immediate assignment of a finance control board with full veto powers to oversee the city’s budget.

Under Patrick’s proposal, the city would be allowed to borrow up to $35 million, while the newly-elected mayor and city council would work hand in hand with an appointed state overseer to try to close the budget shortfall. If they are unable to correct the problem by January 31, 2011, then a finance control board would step in and assume full control of the budget.

The financial obstacles facing Lawrence are considerable: In addition to a $10 million operating deficit, the city is carrying $1.8 milion in debt, a $5 million capital budget deficit, and a $1.6 million shortfall in its health insurance trust fund. It’s also facing $2.5 million in unresolved collective bargaining issues and still has millions of dollars in uncollected taxes oustanding.

Although local officials and Administration and Finance Secretary Jay Gonzalez went to great lengths to reassure the committee that the struggling city can overcome its financial problems on its own by issuing new municipal bonds, legislators were rightfully concerned the state would be left holding the bag if Lawrence defaults on making its payments. With a $24.5 million deficit, the city can’t afford to take any chances. The Governor’s bill needs some teeth added to it, including provisions to put a finance control board in place immediately.

Patrick Administration Out of Ideas

Apparently, the Patrick Administration doesn’t have a clue on how to even begin to address the state’s projected $3 billion budget deficit. At yesterday’s press conference announcing the filing of his Fiscal Year 2011 spending plan, the governor sought to enlist outside help by making a public plea to the residents of the Commonwealth, asking them to submit their money-saving ideas to him at www.mass.gov/governor/forums.

The Senate Republican Caucus already has a series of cost-saving reform measures that can save the state over $1 billion. The governor and his staff may be out of ideas, but we’re confident the voters of Massachusetts will have no shortage of suggestions on how to save enough money to erase the remaining shortfall. The only question is, will the governor actually listen to these ideas and act on them, or will he simply continue to ignore the problem?

Tisei: Governor’s Budget ‘Doesn’t Add Up’

Senate Minority Leader Richard R. Tisei issued the following statement in response to the release of Governor Deval Patrick’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal:

Governor Patrick’s budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2011 just doesn’t add up. Instead, it continues to expand government spending at an unsustainable level. The governor has yet to embrace even the most basic reform measures that are needed to bring state spending under control and to assure the residents of Massachusetts that their tax dollars are being spent wisely.

Last year, the governor resorted to rampant tax and fee increases to balance the budget, and it still wasn’t enough to avoid 9C cuts. The residents of Massachusetts are tired of being asked to bail out Beacon Hill when there is no accountability from their elected officials, but the governor still refuses to implement something as simple as a wage and hiring freeze to tame out-of-control government spending.

The day of reckoning has arrived. By some accounts, we are facing a structural deficit of as much as $3 billion in Fiscal Year 2011, yet the governor continues to rely on one-time fixes to bridge the gap between spending and revenues without undertaking fundamental reforms in the way state government operates. Why won’t he promote privatization by repealing the Pacheco Law, or move MassHealth recipients onto managed care plans? These are just a couple of steps the state can take right now to realize immediate savings.Governor Patrick’s latest budget shows that after three years in office, he is still unwilling to make the tough decisions that are needed to ensure the Commonwealth’s long-term fiscal stability. We’ve had enough of the governor’s quick fixes and lack of follow-through; what we really need is a commitment to fiscal discipline and spending reforms, both of which are missing from the governor’s proposal.

Real Reform or Political Ploy?

Governor Patrick announced yesterday that he was filing a pension reform bill that would cap public pensions and raise the minimum retirement age for state employees. According to the State House News Service, the bill also calls for pro-rating pension benefits to prevent employees from gaming the system to secure inflated pension benefits, and extends the recent ban on “Section 10” early retirement incentives to all government employees, not just elected officials.

The governor’s proposal is hardly ground-breaking. In fact, many of the provisions contained in the bill have been championed by House and Senate Republicans for some time now, but the governor is just getting around to embracing them.

The question now is, is Governor Patrick really serious about reform, or is this just another empty campaign promise? After all, this is the same governor who promised to deliver property tax relief to the voters during his 2006 campaign and then proceeded to implement some of the biggest tax and fee increases in the state’s history.

The governor claims his bill will save the state $2 billion … over 30 years that is. Meanwhile, a $3 billion structural deficit is looming in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget, which demands immediate attention. We’re waiting to see if the governor has any plan to address this gaping financial hole when he releases his new budget later today. But given his track record – all talk, no action – we’re not going to be holding our breaths waiting.

Truth Be Told

Joan Vennochi on the 2010 gubernatorial race.

Deval Patrick, asterisk.

The Bay State’s first black governor, and the first Democrat to win the corner office in 16 years, is at risk of turning into a blip in Massachusetts political history – a one-term governor whose legacy becomes the zeal to replace him with a Republican.

In the early voting – money – Republican Charlie Baker is winning.

Baker raised $1.85 million over five months of campaigning, giving him three times more cash on hand than Patrick. That’s a fairly serious wake-up call for an incumbent Democrat who is best friends with a president.

Some of Baker’s money is coming from traditional Democratic donors, including previous Patrick supporters.

Baker’s big bucks mean one thing to Lawrence DiCara, a longtime Democrat. “He’s for real, which I knew anyway,’’ said DiCara, who remains a Patrick supporter.

Still, it’s only Round One. It’s a winning one for Baker, the former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, but there’s a long way to go before a knock-out. One question, said Democrat Scott Harshbarger, a former attorney general and gubernatorial candidate, is whether this is “one-shot money’’ – contributions from people who know Baker, like him and owe him what Harshbarger labels “the chits of good will’’ – or something deeper and more dangerous for Patrick.

Baker was “able to translate his reputation and record into a significant fundraising event. If the next round demonstrates significant political strength . . . don’t kid yourself, this is going to be a major fight,’’ Harshbarger said.

Rob Gray, Baker’s chief strategist, predicts the money flow to the Republican’s campaign is “eminently sustainable.’’ He attributes the fundraising success to “a combination of people knowing Charlie as a government leader and a business leader and believing in his ability . . . plus a dissatisfaction with the way Deval Patrick has managed, or really not managed effectively, the state budget.’’

The landscape is tough for Democrats nationwide, from the president to members of Congress to governors. Voters are angry over fallout from the poor economy and unhappy over some policies, such as healthcare reform.

In Massachusetts, disappointment over Patrick’s tenure is translating into a real sense of political vulnerability. He was elected with expectations so high they would be difficult to meet under the best circumstances. A poor economy, plus Patrick’s own missteps, worsened the gap between promise and reality.

UPDATE: More from Howie Carr and the Herald.

SECOND UPDATE: More from the Globe, Herald and Metro.

THIRD UPDATE: More from Public Policy Polling.