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