The MetroWest Daily News
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Pike plan puts Finneran on defensive
By Michael Kunzelman
Gov. Mitt Romney's plan to fold the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority into the state Highway Department earned a cool reception yesterday from House Speaker Thomas Finneran during an interview.
Finneran said Romney's proposal could involve a "dangerous reliance" on one-time revenues -- about $190 million in Pike cash reserves. The plan, he said, would also force the state to shoulder the Pike's debt burden.
"I would be interested in it if it made sense," Finneran said. "We're already fairly highly indebted as a state."
Although he acknowledged that $190 million in savings is "not to be scoffed at," Finneran said the revenue only would be available in fiscal 2004, which begins July 1.
"If it's one-time in nature, that means we're not getting it in (fiscal) 2005," Finneran told a gathering of MetroWest Daily News editors and reporters in Framingham. "What are we going to do in 2005 with $190 million in expenditures that it's supporting?"
Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said merging the Pike and the Highway Department would yield savings well beyond July 2004.
"We think it doesn't make sense for the state to have two highway departments," she said. "The governor has proposed eliminating duplication in state government. This is one way we could do that."
Romney's Pike proposal is still in the blueprint stage, but Feddeman said the formal plan should be filed within a month.
"I haven't seen many details, but I still have an open mind on it," said state Sen. David Magnani, D-Framingham. "I didn't get the sense that it's fully thought out yet."
Romney has said that merging the Pike and the Highway Department could allow the state to refinance the Big Dig's bond obligations at a more favorable rate, because the state has a better credit rating than the Pike.
That, in turn, could offset the need to hike Pike tolls to pay the Big Dig's debt.
"My concern is not for the Big Dig," Magnani said. "I hate to be provincial, but my concern is for my constituents, who are facing toll increases for the next 20 years."
Finneran offered warmer reviews to other Romney budget proposals, including his plan to close Natick District Court and seven other courthouses.
"Nobody in the court system should rest comfortably," Finneran said. "At a time like this, you can really break apart all of the calcification. I think you'll see a whole host of activity on things that have in the past been looked at sort of casually and dismissed."
Finneran also said he likes Romney's proposal to streamline Health and Human Services.
"I think there's been a fair amount of redundancy and overlap in that regard," he explained.
Finneran said the state's fiscal crisis is so severe that "every sacred cow, every protected constituency" is on the table.
"The beauty of a moment like this is that it does make change permissible," he said.
The House is preparing to debate Romney's budget plans later this spring. In the meantime, Finneran has embarked on a series of meetings with newspaper editorial boards to rally support for his budget priorities.
He launched a similar public relations tour last year before the House approved a record-setting $1.2 billion tax package to offset the budget deficit.
But taxes are "off the table" this year, even though the state's budget shortfall in fiscal 2004 exceeds $3 billion, Finneran said.
"There are going to be no tax proposals in the House budget, I can tell you that," he said. "What the members will offer, I can't speak to ... but I don't discern any type of support for it."
Finneran also weighed in yesterday on a controversial House resolution on the war in Iraq.
On Monday, a group of liberal Democrats in the House blocked a Republican-sponsored resolution, because they said it supports President Bush's decision to go to war.
The Democrats offered a competing version that only expresses support for U.S. troops. Finneran didn't say which version he supports, but he did praise Bush and condemn France and other countries for blocking a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.
"I'm not going to play around with political nuances," he said. "I am not sure I want to play U.N. Security Council, negotiating back and forth."
Finneran said the liberal faction didn't want to take a roll call recording each member's vote on the resolution.
"This is the most serious event in years," he said of the war. "Now, all of a sudden, no roll call? I find that curious."
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Legislators agree on US troop resolution
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff
Averting a divisive debate, liberal and conservative members of the Massachusetts House yesterday agreed on a watered-down version of a resolution supporting US troops in Iraq, and both sides say they expect it to pass with near-unanimity today.
Liberal Democrats on Monday had blocked a resolution similar to an earlier one by the US Senate. But after a day of wrangling and tense discussions yesterday, members reached a compromise that eliminates a clause that accused Saddam Hussein of violating numerous United Nations resolutions, deletes a reference to the war in Iraq as a "noble undertaking," and tones down a statement of support for President Bush.
Republican leaders had wanted the House saying it "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the president," but the compromise version will have the House stating simply that it "supports the efforts of the president" in the conflict.
"This is clearly a set of resolutions that support the armed forces," said state Representative Byron Rushing, a South End Democrat who was integrally involved in negotiations with Republicans on the resolution. "And it's written in a way that most of our colleagues, and hopefully all of our colleagues, can support."
Republican leaders said they are surprised that the resolution they introduced Monday was found to be objectionable, since all of its major phrases were lifted verbatim from a resolution that passed 99-0 in the US Senate last week. But in the spirit of finding language that would draw the broadest support possible, they said they were willing to remove some words that their colleagues thought went too far.
"It's primarily taking out adjectives," said House minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr., a North Reading Republican. "I'm happy to get some agreement that reflects what we should be doing in Iraq. We're supporting the troops in a context that recognizes our goals." The agreement followed a day of frenzied meetings, phone calls, and e-mails between some of the House's most liberal and conservative members, who represent relatively small minorities in the 160-member body. Passions ran high on both sides, with some Republicans outraged over Democrats' objections, and several liberal members saying they were wary of being duped into backing Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
House members had been talking behind the scenes about a resolution since late last week, and the split between the Republicans and the liberal Democrats spilled into public view on Monday. When Jones sought to introduce his resolution in an informal House session, state Representative Paul C. Demakis blocked passage. The objection of a single House member can defeat any action in informal session.
A group of 18 mostly liberal Democrats -- including Rushing and Demakis -- were seeking to pass a more limited resolution, one that made no mention of Bush or whether the military action was legally justified. But they agreed not to push that resolution yesterday and instead met the Republicans halfway on some issues in their proposal.
For example, while the GOP resolution said the military action against Iraq is "lawful and fully authorized by the Congress," the final version will say only that it is "authorized by the Congress." Rushing said the changes reflected a "change in tone," not nitpicking over syntax. Rushing and his colleagues also succeeded in inserting a clause calling for the "reconstruction of Iraq as a free, prosperous, democratic, and peaceful nation by the people of Iraq."
"This is a far more effective resolution in support of the troops because it will have near-total support in the House," said Demakis, a Back Bay Democrat. Jones said he still doesn't understand why his colleagues would object to a resolution that passed unanimously in the US Senate, even drawing the votes of Massachusetts Democrats Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, who have both criticized Bush for going to war. But he said the compromise is reasonable.
"For these guys to feel like they have to be further to the left than [Democrats in the US Senate] is a little surprising," Jones said.
Return to
top
The MetroWest Daily News
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Nursing homes fight for funding:
Administrators protest Romney 'betrayal'
By Michelle Hillman
Thousands of nursing home administrators rallied at the State House yesterday to protest Gov. Mitt Romney's plan to use money intended for nursing homes to help solve the state's budget crisis.
Scott Plumb, senior vice president of the Massachusetts Extended Care Federation, which represents the state's nursing homes and assisted living facilities, said administrators feel betrayed.
"The Romney people huddled (and decided) rather than stabilize our system with this money, they wanted to stabilize the state," Plumb said.
Plumb said a month ago he found out Romney would postpone until June the nursing homes getting any money, and that the governor had proposed using some of it to address the budget crisis.
"Eight months ago, we thought we were in business," Plumb said. "We feel like we've been
double-crossed."
The federation last year came up with a plan to generate revenue for ailing nursing homes underfunded by the state and federal government.
Nursing home administrators agreed to assess a "user fee" of $10 per day on all non-Medicare patients to increase the federal contribution to the Medicaid program.
The user fee was approved by the Legislature and acting Gov. Jane Swift, and was intended to raise $145 million.
The federal government matches state contributions, resulting in $290 million in Medicaid funding at no cost to the state, the administrators said.
Heather Bisset, spokesperson for the Division of Medical Assistance, which oversees the state's Medicaid program, said nursing homes are going to receive $63 million in June.
The Romney administration wants to use $28 million from the program for other purposes. The plan requires legislative approval.
Bisset said nursing homes will get all but the $28 million back as part of the user fee program. She said the state is waiting to hear from the federal government whether it can award its portion of the match to nursing homes.
"Unfortunately, the state's in fiscal emergency," Bisset said. "We felt that delaying the increase was reasonable. Due to the fiscal crisis, all the changes we've made aren't fair."
At yesterday's rally, state Sen. Richard Moore, D-Uxbridge, likened the situation to a "mugging." He's circulating a letter among legislators that calls for the governor to restore funding.
"I think they have a legitimate grievance," Moore said. "Not only did they not get the increase but they got a decrease."
Tom Sullivan, executive director of Blaire House in Milford, attended yesterday's rally to protest cuts to nursing homes.
Like many of the nursing home executives at the morning rally, Sullivan banked on money from the user fee program. He said his nursing home would have received $200,000.
Instead, Sullivan said he has frozen wages, laid off four staff members, and cut management pay by 2.5 percent.
"What Gov. Romney has done has turned the tables on us," he said. "Instead of giving the money back to us, he's going to keep it."
Susan Legrand, director of admissions at the Carlyle House in Framingham, attended the rally, saying it was cry for help.
"How can you take away the basic needs of these older residents," she said.
Legrand said she's had to use creative measures to trim staff hours and reduce overtime without sacrificing patient care. She also had to eliminate an assistant who helped coordinate activities.
"We still have a light bill to pay, staff that would like a raise," she said. "How do you recruit quality help when you have not a lot to offer?"
Plumb said he doesn't know when and how much money will be awarded to the nursing homes. To add to their money problems, the Romney administration has instituted a 2.7 percent decrease in Medicaid funding in the current year, he said.
The federation represents 500 nursing homes and assisted living facilities in the state. He said homes hit the hardest by the loss of user fee funds are Medicaid facilities that serve poor, elderly residents.
In the last four years, 95 nursing homes in the state closed, Plumb said. He said without money generated from the user fee program, another 40 nursing homes may close.
"I would think it's not the way he wants to start a relationship with one of the major health providers in the state," Plumb said of Romney's plan.
Moore said ultimately the cut to nursing homes in the user fee program will hurt the most vulnerable if nursing homes are forced to close.
"Overall it's going to be not just a problem in the nursing home industry but it's going to be a real problem for elders in the state. I think it's very short-sighted. We're trying to balance the budget on the frailest and most needy in society."
Return to
top
