5/5 12:37pm MSH, In response to my statistics and facts you stated "If you don't think that this state is loaded with patronage, you're living in a dream world." Who said anything about patronage? You have no idea what I think about patronage. If by patronage you mean inefficiencies and waste, then I think it you who are expressing your wishful hopes rather than the facts when you say that "if all the patronage were eliminated we could not only increase the education budget but also have more tax cuts." Have you looked at Romney's proposed budget?

We have had $2 billion in budget cuts over the past two years. Romney continues the cuts and now he is hitting muscle and bone, not fat. Over a half a billion dollars of his proposed cuts are what he is calling health care and management "reforms." These reforms are not attacks on "patronage" -- they are tighter eligibility and co-pays for Medicaid and reductions in compensation for state employees. Other cuts that it would be nice if you could explain as a cut to patronage include:

• Local Aid: The Romney budget would cut lottery distributions from $778.1 million in the initial FY03 budget to $419.0 million, repeating a technique employed during the last fiscal crisis, when aid distributions from the lottery (which was originally set up as a source of local aid) were capped and revenue was diverted into state coffers. The end result is a total cut in non-education local aid of $349.4 million, the largest single cut in the budget. This isn't a patronage cut -- this taking money we pay to the state in taxes and not allowing it to flow back to cities and towns to help fund schools, police, and fire fighting. Where is the patronage?
• Education Aid: Romney proposes a substantial cut to other K-12 education spending, including the elimination of early literacy, full-day kindergarten, and class size reduction programs, a steep cut in funding for regional school transportation, and the transfer (without adequate funding) of the state's early education program for three to five year olds. Patronage again? Where is it?
• Higher Education: The overall cut to higher education programs in the budget is $156 million. The Higher Education programs in our state have been dying a death of a thousand cuts. Other states look to that state schools as beacons of learning -- as a venue to allow children born by chance into poor families to rise up and grasp the American dream. From his deep cuts, one can only assume that Romney does not share that vision.
• Health and Human Services: While it is not yet clear how much of the proposed cuts to health and human services can be accounted for by savings realized through Romney's ambitious reorganization, it is clear that the budget includes cuts to vital services. Romney plans to eliminate the model Senior Pharmacy program that provides drug benefits for the elderly. He proposed increases to the co-pays and premiums for Medicaid patients, along with tighter eligibility standards -- this will lead to the loss of health coverage for low income families and individuals. Total spending on child care drops by $44.7 million, nearly ten percent. At the same time, Romney imposes more stringent work requirements for welfare recipients which will increase the demand for child care, setting up a catch-22 for poor mothers. Patronage?
• The Environment: Romney is cutting environmental programs by about $20 million. This includes cuts to the state's Riverways program that helps protect state rivers and streams. I guess he won't be jumping into the Charles during the next election campaign. On top that, he moves several environmental funds to the general budget (revenue on unclaimed bottle deposits, for instance). This means that he can dip into funds that used to be dedicated to ensuring our environmental health and apply them wherever he sees fit. Patronage?
• Housing: There's almost nothing left here, but he cuts away anyway. He cuts public housing subsidies by $4.5 million from the initial FY03 level; it appears that this cut will be at least partly balanced by an increase in minimum rents that must be paid by public housing tenants. The budget also eliminates funding for the Affordable Housing Trust fund. Patronage?

Other than the very public attempts to eliminate Bill Bulger's office (something that he knows as well as you and I that will never happen), Romney proposes nothing that eliminates patronage as far as I can tell. A cynic might say that he is using the very public attack on Bulger to make it seem that what he is doing is fighting patronage, when all of the other cuts seem to be balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Perhaps you have evidence that explains the above cuts as patronage elimination? If so, please share it. I remind you again -- Massachusetts ranks 45th in the United States in the share of its personal income devoted to state and local spending.

- MH