CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Gov. Patrick's FY '12 budget bill does . . . what?
“But we have to pass
the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog
of controversy.”
— U.S. House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
March 8, 2010
In remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National
Association of Counties
Gov. Deval Patrick on Monday signed a $30.6
billion annual state budget, putting a spending blueprint featuring
government reforms and no new taxes on the books 11 days into the
new fiscal year....
The bill depends upon two major strategies to
help state government balance its budget, which last year was
supported by $1.5 billion in federal funds that are not available
this year. It calls for the Patrick administration to whack $750
million off projected spending in the massive Medicaid health
insurance program and dodges a huge scheduled spike in public
employee pension system costs by pushing those obligations into
future years....
At a press conference, Patrick budget chief Jay
Gonzalez also guaranteed that a planned $65 million local aid cut
included in the budget will not take effect due to spending
reversions that officials anticipate.
Municipal health care reforms in the budget will
help communities control insurance costs, officials said.
State House News Service
Monday, July 11, 2011
No spending vetoes as Patrick signs $30.6 billion fiscal 2012 budget
The White House took the unusual step this spring
of calling Governor Deval Patrick to discuss his plan to curb the
collective bargaining rights of public employees, an indication that
the Obama administration may have been concerned about the potential
for national political fallout.
The call was made in late April, just after a
tougher version of Patrick’s plan passed the House, sparking outrage
from labor leaders who accused Massachusetts Democrats of launching
a “Wisconsin-esque’’ attack on workers’ rights.
At the time, President Obama, Patrick’s friend
and political ally, had been trying to fire up the Democratic base
by criticizing Republican governors for slashing collective
bargaining rights.
Patrick disclosed yesterday that several national
labor leaders called the White House to express concern about the
Massachusetts plans. Nick Rathod, the White House’s deputy director
of intergovernmental affairs, then called Patrick.
“There was no message,’’ the governor said
yesterday, declining to discuss the call in detail as he signed the
collective bargaining changes into law. “They were just checking
in.’’ ...
Yesterday, Robert J. Haynes, president of the
AFL-CIO of Massachusetts, who had angrily vowed to “fight this thing
to the bitter end’’ in April, said labor unions support the
governor’s final plan, thanks to some last-minute changes Patrick
negotiated. He congratulated the governor for listening to labor’s
concerns.
“Finally, in the endgame, we still get to sit
down with municipalities and bang out and bargain what health care
looks like in that city or town,’’ Haynes said. “That’s all we ever
wanted, was to have a voice.’’
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
National scrutiny for Mass. labor law
Patrick OK’s collective bargaining changes
Mr. Patrick put the finishing touches on the
municipal health care reform plan adopted by the Legislature as part
of the budget when he gained agreement from House and Senate leaders
to a handful of final changes.
Those changes were returned to the House and
Senate as part of the governor’s budget veto package, in the form of
amendments approved yesterday in the House and Senate by
overwhelming majorities.
Advocates for cities and towns and unions that
opposed each other’s proposals to reduce health care costs for
municipalities in January said yesterday they support the reform
provisions that limit bargaining rights over co-payments and
deductibles, but allow for union negotiations in framing changes to
worker health insurance plans....
In communities that use the new municipal reform
provisions to cut worker insurance costs outside of traditional
collective bargaining rules, employees could see an increase in
co-payments and deductibles as well as reduced coverage. A final
change in the legislation approved by lawmakers will allow workers
to get up to a 25 percent share of the municipal savings from
insurance changes.
Those final provisions also would allow
communities to transfer workers to the state Group Insurance
Commission plans if they save more than five percent compared to
locally available worker insurance plans....
Robert Haynes, president of the Massachusetts
AFL-CIO, said unions were willingly part of the solution to deliver
up to $100 million in savings to cities and towns and did not
abandon bargaining rights in the process. He said many unions
including those in Boston and Worcester agreed to similar
cost-saving measures without the new process.
“Collective bargaining is very much alive and
well,” Mr. Haynes said.
The Telegram & Gazette
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Gov. signs $30.6 billion budget bill
No spending vetoes for first time in years
Patrick says the new rules governing health
insurance negotiations for municipal employees will save cities and
towns about $100 million, and the savings will begin this year.
Patrick took a House-Senate compromise and spent the last week
negotiating changes that softened the financial hit for some union
members or retirees. He says the amendments he revised with union,
municipal, House and Senate leaders are an important accomplishment.
“By delivering meaningful savings to cities and
towns and ensuring a meaning role for employees in determining how
those savings will be achieved, this has been no small
accomplishment,” Patrick said.
Municipal leaders agree. But some union leaders,
while agreeing to not fight the compromise, still feel this is a
loss. The changes means cities and towns can increase co-pays and
deductibles without union approval as long as the increases are in
line with what most state employees pay.
“I’m disappointed in the fact that in a state
like Massachusetts we had to get to this point in time, when we’ve
been a national example for how to treat your employees and how
important the collective bargaining process is,” said Ray McGrath,
political director of the National Association of Government
Employees in Massachusetts.
WBUR
Monday, July 11, 2011
Patrick Signs New State Budget
Gov. Deval L. Patrick on Monday signed a $30.6
billion budget for this fiscal year that includes a provision
expected to negate a $65 million, or 7 percent, cut in unrestricted
state aid to cities and towns....
Because of a rider in the budget, Jay Gonzalez,
secretary for administration and finance, said he expected that
communities would get back $65 million in cuts to unrestricted local
aid in the budget, preventing a fourth straight year of cuts to
local aid.
The rider, authored by Republicans in the state
House of Representatives, requires that 50 percent of any fiscal
2011 budget surplus, not to exceed $65 million, be distributed to
cities and towns no later than Oct. 31. According to Gonzalez, the
budget surplus for the prior fiscal year should be large enough to
ensure the $65 million cut will be restored....
The budget includes a measure to take away some
bargaining rights from unions in negotiating municipal health
insurance....
"That's very good news," said Geoffrey C.
Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal
Association. "It will help communities with a huge number of fiscal
problems."
Beckwith also cheered a plan to reduce the costs
to cities and towns of providing health insurance to teachers,
police, firefighters and other municipal employees, aiming to save
$100 million a year.
The plan, included in the budget, allows cities
and towns additional flexibility to increase co-payments,
deductibles and other aspects of public employee health insurance
outside of the collective bargaining process.
Under the proposal, cities and towns could shift
their workers into the state's Group Insurance Commission or another
lower-cost plan after a month-long negotiation period with unions.
Municipalities proposing to transfer employees to the state plan
must demonstrate that savings under this option will be 5 percent
greater than savings from redesign of the municipality’s plan.
The governor said the limits on collective
bargaining will preserve a meaningful role for unions while
providing important savings for cities and towns. Patrick and
legislative leaders reached final agreement on the plan on Friday,
working with unions and municipal leaders.
The Springfield Republican
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signs $30.6 billion state budget
Fiscally responsible town managers finally have
the tools they need to control the cost of providing health care to
municipal employees. It’s been a long battle with labor unions, but
one worth up to $100 million in annual savings for cities and
towns....
Labor pressure on Patrick and the Senate
threatened to derail the effort. That would have forced communities
to cut back even more on basic services - such as libraries and fire
protection - in order to maintain the generous health care policies
for public employees. But House Speaker Robert DeLeo remained
stalwart throughout. In the end, a compromise was reached that
offers workers good health insurance without killing Massachusetts
cities and towns.
A Boston Globe editorial
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Municipal health: A solid agreement for cities
The skids for a cave-in on municipal health care
were being greased even before the weekend barbecues could be lit.
The signs were all there. Gov. Deval Patrick had spent the better
part of the week just being too, too cute about how he wanted “a
bill that delivers real and meaningful savings for cities and towns
in the short run and also has a meaningful role for labor.” ...
It was a tough vote; too bad Speaker Robert DeLeo
didn’t hang in there with it. Labor thugs like outgoing (and won’t
he leave already) Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Robert Haynes went
ballistic. You know you’ve got a good bill for the taxpayers when
Bobby Haynes goes ballistic.
The Senate bill gave back more to the unions and
the compromise version split the difference.
But, no, even that wasn’t good enough for the
governor. He wanted to tip the scales toward labor even more — thus
raising the larger question of what the hell is he running for
anyway?
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, July 11, 2011
Patrick caves to unions
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Barbara wrote a comment online in response to the
Boston Globe report of the final budget deal, "National scrutiny for
Mass. labor law":
It's good to remember that this was a
Deval deal after the Senate deal after the House deal on the
original sensible deal. Patrick won his first election on
the promise of "property tax relief," which he never
delivered. Then he supported real municipal health insurance
reform, just before the next election. So I have to agree
with others that it's the voters, stupid. I mean, it's the
stupid voters.
Much can be inferred by what's not said
and who's not saying it.
We're still trying to make sense of it.
First, there's the Globe editorial praising the
municipal government employee health care reforms.
Then, there's the Herald's excoriation of the
same.
In the middle are the news reports.
Robert Haynes, president of the Massachusetts
AFL-CIO, declared that unions and “Collective bargaining is very
much alive and well.”
But Ray McGrath, political director of the
National Association of Government Employees in Massachusetts, said:
“I’m disappointed in the fact that in a state like Massachusetts we
had to get to this point in time, when we’ve been a national example
for how to treat your employees and how important the collective
bargaining process is.”
After friendly calls from President Obama's White
House people — no pressure, mind you, and only
at the behest of "several national labor leaders"
— Gov. Patrick presented his "final plan," to which Robert J.
Haynes, president of the AFL-CIO of Massachusetts, "who had angrily
vowed to 'fight this thing to the bitter end' in April, said labor
unions support the governor’s final plan, thanks to some last-minute
changes Patrick negotiated."
So the unions are onboard.
The Globe is perhaps a day late but supports it. The Herald's
editorial concludes "He wanted to tip the scales toward labor
even more — thus raising the larger question of what the hell is he
running for anyway?"
Anyone have a clue yet what just happened?
It looks like another case of “But we have to
pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the
fog of controversy.”
Michael Widmer, president of the
so-called
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, concluded: "It's a
responsible budget. It resists the temptation, with increased tax
revenues, to add to the bottomline."
We can agree with the tax increase part of this,
as painful as agreeing is with anything coming from him and MTF.
Geoffrey C. Beckwith, executive director of the
Massachusetts Municipal Association, "also cheered a plan to reduce
the costs to cities and towns of providing health insurance to
teachers, police, firefighters and other municipal employees, aiming
to save $100 million a year."
But he cheered this after learning that
"communities would get back $65 million in cuts to unrestricted
local aid in the budget, preventing a fourth straight year of cuts
to local aid," a rider in the budget authored by Republicans in the
House.
Geez, $65 million unanticipated and unrestricted
local aid in this (FY 2012) budget . . . ?
Think that'll cover a lot of the local fiscal
union costs and the growing problem without forcing solutions?
More money is never the solution.
Just look back to "Embarrassment
of Riches" in 1999. How'd that work out for us taxpayers?
Little noted in these reports is one of Gov.
Patrick's vetoes: "Inspector General MassHealth Audit, Section
156. Patrick said he doesn’t object to a MassHealth audit by
Inspector General Greg Sullivan using other funds but vetoed this
section 'because it expends scarce program funds from the Health
Safety Net Trust Fund.'"
We wondered what happened to
IG Sullivan's April exposé,
["Ongoing
Analysis of the Health Safety Net Trust Fund"]; whether it
ruffled Bacon Hill feathers. Now I believe we know.
This looks like another
example of "we have to pass the bill so that you can find
out what is in it."
Like the last
government employee health insurance reform
— it looks like we'll find out only in
the next couple or few years whether this "reform" works any
better than the last did.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Monday, July 11, 2011
No spending vetoes as Patrick signs $30.6 billion fiscal 2012 budget
By Michael Norton and Matt Murphy
Gov. Deval Patrick on Monday signed a $30.6 billion annual state
budget, putting a spending blueprint featuring government reforms
and no new taxes on the books 11 days into the new fiscal year.
Patrick did not veto any spending in the budget shipped to him by
lawmakers ten days ago, but axed 16 outside budget sections
including proposals dealing with cigar bars, prescription drug
waste, reviews of small business health insurance rates, an audit of
the MassHealth program, and implementation of school athlete head
injury rules.
The bill depends upon two major strategies to help state government
balance its budget, which last year was supported by $1.5 billion in
federal funds that are not available this year. It calls for the
Patrick administration to whack $750 million off projected spending
in the massive Medicaid health insurance program and dodges a huge
scheduled spike in public employee pension system costs by pushing
those obligations into future years.
The bottom line on the new budget is $750 million less than
projected spending in fiscal 2011, a year when Patrick and the
Legislature adopted numerous midyear spending bills that drove the
state’s spending baseline higher.
The new budget cuts K-12 public education funding, despite an
increase in the state’s share of that funding, while increasing
spending on special education and regional school transportation.
At a press conference, Patrick budget chief Jay Gonzalez also
guaranteed that a planned $65 million local aid cut included in the
budget will not take effect due to spending reversions that
officials anticipate.
Municipal health care reforms in the budget will help communities
control insurance costs, officials said.
According to the Mass Budget and Policy Center, the final budget
cuts public higher education funding by about $60 million but allows
campuses to retain out-of-state tuition rather than remitting it to
the state.
In the area of reform, the budget anticipates savings from moving
toward a higher percentage of public defenders rather than
contracted legal services for indigent individuals. The budget
shifts funds towards homelessness prevention and looks to target
emergency shelter services to those who need it most. And the
spending blueprint requires independent audits of each state
authority that receives more than $500,000 in state funding.
The budget also eliminates funding for a 41-year-old program
designed to improve the quality of police officers by offering
salary increases as incentive for officers to pursue higher
education. Patrick said he was disappointed that lawmakers scrapped
the $5 million he proposed in January for the so-called Quinn Bill.
The governor said he was interested in looking at ways to keep the
program going without building benefits into base salaries.
There are no tax increases or decreases in the budget, which is the
first to top the $30 billion mark. Patrick signed the budget at a
press conference in his office. Legislative leaders did not attend
the press conference.
The budget arrives as Patrick and Treasurer Steven Grossman
strategize to pass a new round of pension system reforms, including
an increase in the retirement age. Grossman estimates the reforms
will save $5 billion over the long-term and give state government a
chance to see an upgrade in its bond rating.
While Patrick and the Legislature can now start to distance
themselves from budget deliberations that have consumed most of
2011, they will soon need to think about how to allocate a fiscal
2011 surplus expected to total hundreds of millions of dollars.
Budget writers drew $185 million from the state’s rainy day fund for
the fiscal 2012 budget and efforts are expected to use the surplus
to build that fund up again. The fund is projected to end next
fiscal year with $585 million, ranking it among the top ten largest
balanced among the states, according to the Patrick administration.
Patrick said he “reluctantly” approved an increase in spending on
the state probation department with the understanding that the House
and Senate will take up hiring reforms in the next few weeks – both
branches have passed different versions of reforms that are being
negotiated by a six-member conference committee.
Patrick said he vetoed a few outside sections but details were not
available at the press conference.
Here’s a full list of the 16 vetoed outside sections:
●
Prescription drug waste, Section 81. Patrick said current law
“provides for the return and redispensing of medications, the
Department of Public Health has guidelines in place governing those
processes, and the Department retains the authority to make further
rules and regulations as necessary.”
●
Prescription drug waste, Section 82. Patrick called this section
“unnecessary, as patients currently are permitted and are discharged
with their personal bulk medication” and DPH has the authority to
adopt regulations.
●
Senior care options/PACE notice, Section 87. Patrick said this
section would impose additional MassHealth costs “without a
corresponding appropriation.” He said he’s prepared to recommend the
necessary appropriation and to then approve the requirement.
●
Division of Insurance Review of Small Group Health Insurance Rates,
Section 107. Patrick said this section would “decrease efficiency
and transparency” in the division’s rate hearings.
●
Division of Insurance Review of Small Group Health Insurance rates,
Section 108. Patrick said this section “inhibits the commissioner
from conducting a thorough review of the carrier’s rate submission,
and automatically allowing rates that have not been thoroughly
reviewed could increase premium costs and create confusion in the
marketplace.”
●
Division of Insurance Review of Small Group Health Insurance rates,
Section 109. Related to above.
●
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program waiver, Section 134.
Patrick said this section would remove the discretion of his Office
of Administration and Finance to review and approve waivers. He said
the secretary was prepared to “exercise his discretion when
appropriate.”
●
Inspector General MassHealth Audit, Section 156. Patrick said he
doesn’t object to a MassHealth audit by Inspector General Greg
Sullivan using other funds but vetoed this section “because it
expends scarce program funds from the Health Safety Net Trust Fund.”
●
Prescription drug waste, Section 178. Patrick said this section
requires a study of other budget outside sections he vetoed and
believes are unnecessary.
●
Cigar bars, Section 197. Patrick said this section “prevents local
officials from protecting the public health of their citizens.”
●
Competition among MassHealth managed care organizations, Section
203A. The outside section will “unduly interfere with the contracts
resulting from MassHealth’s recent competitive procurement for its
contracted managed care organizations,” Patrick said in his veto
attachment.
●
Senior care options, Section 204. Provides effective date for
another section of budget that Patrick vetoed.
●
DPH head injury regulations, Section 207. Patrick said the outside
section would unnecessarily delay the effective date of an act
protecting the health of school athletes “that schools have had
ample time to implement.”
●
Prescription drug waste, Section 216. Provides effective date for
another section of budget that Patrick vetoed.
●
Prescription drug coupons, Section 218. Provides effective date for
another section of budget that Patrick vetoed.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
National scrutiny for Mass. labor law
Patrick OK’s collective bargaining changes
By Michael Levenson
The White House took the unusual step this spring of calling
Governor Deval Patrick to discuss his plan to curb the collective
bargaining rights of public employees, an indication that the Obama
administration may have been concerned about the potential for
national political fallout.
The call was made in late April, just after a tougher version of
Patrick’s plan passed the House, sparking outrage from labor leaders
who accused Massachusetts Democrats of launching a “Wisconsin-esque’’
attack on workers’ rights.
At the time, President Obama, Patrick’s friend and political ally,
had been trying to fire up the Democratic base by criticizing
Republican governors for slashing collective bargaining rights.
Patrick disclosed yesterday that several national labor leaders
called the White House to express concern about the Massachusetts
plans. Nick Rathod, the White House’s deputy director of
intergovernmental affairs, then called Patrick.
“There was no message,’’ the governor said yesterday, declining to
discuss the call in detail as he signed the collective bargaining
changes into law. “They were just checking in.’’
Patrick, who is close to the president’s political team, plans to
play an active role in Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012.
Political analysts said that if Patrick were seen to be cutting
union rights, it could have undercut the president’s ability to
attack the GOP on the issue.
“What was going on in places like Wisconsin and Ohio were strong
talking points for the president and the Democratic Party going into
the next election: that the Republicans want to take away your
collective bargaining rights,’’ said Raymond J. La Raja, a political
scientist at the University of Massachusetts. “So any indication
that there were Democrats loosening collective bargaining rights
undermined that message.’’
A Patrick aide said the White House did not attempt to coerce or
lobby the governor, but simply wanted to find out more about the
changes that he and the Legislature were contemplating.
In recent weeks, Patrick has silenced almost all of the union
opposition without alienating more conservative taxpayer groups, an
accomplishment that will no doubt relieve any concern the White
House might have felt.
“It’s a big win for the Democrats, because they want to avoid the
kind of spectacle you’re seeing in Wisconsin,’’ said Peter
Ubertaccio, a political scientist at Stonehill College. “It would be
very difficult for the president and Democrats in Washington to use
[Governor Scott] Walker as a foil, if Massachusetts, a Democratic
state with a Democratic governor,’’ was also sparking union
protests, he said.
Yesterday, Robert J. Haynes, president of the AFL-CIO of
Massachusetts, who had angrily vowed to “fight this thing to the
bitter end’’ in April, said labor unions support the governor’s
final plan, thanks to some last-minute changes Patrick negotiated.
He congratulated the governor for listening to labor’s concerns.
“Finally, in the endgame, we still get to sit down with
municipalities and bang out and bargain what health care looks like
in that city or town,’’ Haynes said. “That’s all we ever wanted, was
to have a voice.’’
Patrick’s plan still curbs the collective bargaining rights of
teachers, firefighters, and other municipal employees, in an effort
to save $100 million in health insurance costs for cities and towns.
But the last-minute changes Patrick negotiated will cushion
seriously ill employees and retirees from significantly higher costs
and limit the ability of local governments to make sweeping changes
to employee health plans without union approval.
Unlike the more divisive collective bargaining laws pushed in
Republican-led states, unions in Massachusetts will get a
“meaningful role’’ at the bargaining table and cities and towns will
see “meaningful savings’’ in their insurance costs, Patrick said.
“This has been no small accomplishment,’’ the governor said, seeming
to savor the end of an acrimonious debate.
Patrick signed the collective bargaining changes as part of a $30.6
billion budget. The budget, which was 10 days late, includes no new
taxes but imposes some tough cuts.
It slashes higher education spending by $70 million, funds home care
services for the elderly and disabled for only half a year, and
raises copayments for poor residents who receive state-subsidized
health insurance. The yearly clothing allowance for poor children
will also be slashed, from $150 to $40.
Patrick said he reluctantly approved a spending increase for the
scandal-seared state Probation Department, even though lawmakers
have not approved changes to reduce patronage and cronyism in the
agency. “I cannot emphasize enough the importance of prompt action
on these proposals,’’ he said.
Patrick did not use his veto to cut any spending, saying he
regretted that he did not have more money to spend on social
services.
He did, however, veto several policy changes in the budget.
One item he vetoed would have allowed Boston’s cigar bars to remain
open indefinitely, despite Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s order that they
begin closing in 2018. Patrick said the Legislature should not
trample the power of local officials to protect their residents from
tobacco smoke.
The Telegram & Gazette
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Gov. signs $30.6 billion budget bill
No spending vetoes for first time in years
By John J. Monahan
Gov. Deval L. Patrick yesterday signed a $30.6 billion fiscal 2012
budget without vetoing any spending items for the first time in
decades, and wrapped up reforms allowing municipalities to cut
annual worker health insurance costs by an estimated $100 million.
Mr. Patrick put the finishing touches on the municipal health care
reform plan adopted by the Legislature as part of the budget when he
gained agreement from House and Senate leaders to a handful of final
changes.
Those changes were returned to the House and Senate as part of the
governor’s budget veto package, in the form of amendments approved
yesterday in the House and Senate by overwhelming majorities.
Advocates for cities and towns and unions that opposed each other’s
proposals to reduce health care costs for municipalities in January
said yesterday they support the reform provisions that limit
bargaining rights over co-payments and deductibles, but allow for
union negotiations in framing changes to worker health insurance
plans.
Mr. Patrick said the budget is $750 million less for the coming year
than the estimated final spending figure for the fiscal year that
ended June 30.
While replete with cuts to state services and programs, the new
budget provides record local school funding and in the end will
level-fund municipal aid. It includes a $65 million cut in
unrestricted municipal aid, but a Republican-sponsored budget
amendment agreed to by the governor will restore that funding using
$65 million in state funds that remained unspent at the end of the
last fiscal year.
“This budget reflects tough decisions and sacrifice across state
government along with a demonstrated commitment to doing business
better,” the governor said. “I am proud of the reform measures that
will help us both improve services and save money,” he added.
The budget includes no tax increases, and the governor said he may
support a one- or two-day sales tax holiday later this summer, if
approved by the Legislature and if ongoing tax revenues are adequate
to support it. “This is still a really tough time and it’s a very
lean budget so I don’t want to promise without being certain,” Mr.
Patrick said.
The governor said program and service cuts will affect poor
individuals and families across the state. But he said they were
needed to overcome the end of $1.5 billion in federal stimulus
funding used each of the last three years to balance the state
budget.
He said several years of careful budgeting has left the state in a
strong fiscal position.
“Massachusetts is one of only three states in America with a
positive credit rating outlook from Standard & Poors,” Mr. Patrick
said. He also said the budget “eliminates the structural deficit I
inherited from my predecessors” and includes the largest
year-to-year spending reduction in more than 20 years.
The budget targets investments in job creation, education, health
care and youth violence and provides a record high level of aid to
local schools that will see a 3 percent increase, Mr. Patrick said.
The budget level-funds the state’s subsidized health care programs
for lower-income residents, but calls for more than $700 million in
health care cuts through reimbursement rate cuts for Medicaid
providers and other reductions. They include new incentives to get
municipal and state workers on the state group insurance program to
accept lower-cost insurance plans with limited access to doctor and
hospital networks and rebidding health insurance plans for the
state’s subsidized Commonwealth Care insurance program to get lower
rates.
While the budget increases state aid to local special education
costs by $80 million, Administration and Finance Secretary Jay
Gonzalez said that allocation will not completely offset the loss of
$100 million in federal stimulus funds for those programs.
The budget will impose a $70 million cut in higher education
spending which administration officials said was a factor in
University of Massachusetts officials raising student fees by 7.5
percent. The clothing allowance for low-income families will be cut
from $150 to $40 per child and constitutional offices and the
governor’s office operations will see a 2 percent cut.
Legislative-approved spending items went untouched by the governor
for the first time since Michael S. Dukakis was in office. But Mr.
Patrick did veto several outside sections calling for policy
changes. Included was a provision that would have prevented local
officials from closing previously licensed cigar bars.
In communities that use the new municipal reform provisions to cut
worker insurance costs outside of traditional collective bargaining
rules, employees could see an increase in co-payments and
deductibles as well as reduced coverage. A final change in the
legislation approved by lawmakers will allow workers to get up to a
25 percent share of the municipal savings from insurance changes.
Those final provisions also would allow communities to transfer
workers to the state Group Insurance Commission plans if they save
more than five percent compared to locally available worker
insurance plans.
Mr. Gonzalez said estimates of potential municipal savings of $100
million annually are conservative and he noted that the last 30
communities that transferred workers to GIC insurance are saving
about $50 million annually.
The governor said unions have not reacted angrily here as they have
in other states that tried to eliminate union bargaining rights
because labor in Massachusetts was given a role in shaping the
reforms.
Robert Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, said unions
were willingly part of the solution to deliver up to $100 million in
savings to cities and towns and did not abandon bargaining rights in
the process. He said many unions including those in Boston and
Worcester agreed to similar cost-saving measures without the new
process.
“Collective bargaining is very much alive and well,” Mr. Haynes
said.
WBUR
Monday, July 11, 2011
Patrick Signs New State Budget
By Martha Bebinger
It’s a little over a week late, but the state has a budget for the
fiscal year that began July 1. Gov. Deval Patrick signed the $30.6
billion spending plan in his State House office Monday.
The main holdup was a series of changes that will give cities and
towns more authority to adjust health insurance and save money.
Patrick says the new rules governing health insurance negotiations
for municipal employees will save cities and towns about $100
million, and the savings will begin this year. Patrick took a
House-Senate compromise and spent the last week negotiating changes
that softened the financial hit for some union members or retirees.
He says the amendments he revised with union, municipal, House and
Senate leaders are an important accomplishment.
“By delivering meaningful savings to cities and towns and ensuring a
meaning role for employees in determining how those savings will be
achieved, this has been no small accomplishment,” Patrick said.
Municipal leaders agree. But some union leaders, while agreeing to
not fight the compromise, still feel this is a loss. The changes
means cities and towns can increase co-pays and deductibles without
union approval as long as the increases are in line with what most
state employees pay.
“I’m disappointed in the fact that in a state like Massachusetts we
had to get to this point in time, when we’ve been a national example
for how to treat your employees and how important the collective
bargaining process is,” said Ray McGrath, political director of the
National Association of Government Employees in Massachusetts.
McGrath and the governor agree that these changes do nothing to
address the underlying problem of rising health care costs. Patrick
says working with the Legislature on that problem is a top priority
in the coming months.
The Springfield Republican
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signs $30.6 billion state budget
By Dan Ring
Gov. Deval L. Patrick on Monday signed a $30.6 billion budget for
this fiscal year that includes a provision expected to negate a $65
million, or 7 percent, cut in unrestricted state aid to cities and
towns.
During a press conference in his Statehouse office, Patrick said he
made no vetoes to line items in the budget, or the first time since
1990 that a governor has approved a budget with no vetoes to
spending items.
Patrick said state legislators sent him a budget that was similar to
the spending plan he filed in January. Legislators approved the
budget on July 1.
"I am very happy with the budget enacted by the Legislature,"
Patrick said.
The budget includes cuts to many programs including Head Start,
anti-violence grants to communities, environmental protection,
teenage pregnancy prevention and services for people with AIDS.
The budget includes a measure to take away some bargaining rights
from unions in negotiating municipal health insurance. The budget
also includes cuts to higher education that have forced the
University of Massachusetts and almost every other campus to raise
mandatory fees on students for the upcoming academic year.
Patrick also signed a provision to double the number of staff public
defenders in state government and strip some work from
state-contracted private lawyers for the poor. The budget adds 250
public defenders, plus an additional 50 to 75 support staff.
Because of a rider in the budget, Jay Gonzalez, secretary for
administration and finance, said he expected that communities would
get back $65 million in cuts to unrestricted local aid in the
budget, preventing a fourth straight year of cuts to local aid.
The rider, authored by Republicans in the state House of
Representatives, requires that 50 percent of any fiscal 2011 budget
surplus, not to exceed $65 million, be distributed to cities and
towns no later than Oct. 31. According to Gonzalez, the budget
surplus for the prior fiscal year should be large enough to ensure
the $65 million cut will be restored.
While it's too early to determine exact numbers, the provision, for
example, could mean that Agawam will get back a one-time payment of
$226,000; Belchertown, $104,000; Chicopee, $700,000; Northampton,
$270,000; Palmer, $123,000; Springfield, $2.3 million; Westfield,
$385,000 and West Springfield, $219,000.
"That's very good news," said Geoffrey C. Beckwith, executive
director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. "It will help
communities with a huge number of fiscal problems.'
Beckwith also cheered a plan to reduce the costs to cities and towns
of providing health insurance to teachers, police, firefighters and
other municipal employees, aiming to save $100 million a year.
The plan, included in the budget, allows cities and towns additional
flexibility to increase co-payments, deductibles and other aspects
of public employee health insurance outside of the collective
bargaining process.
Under the proposal, cities and towns could shift their workers into
the state's Group Insurance Commission or another lower-cost plan
after a month-long negotiation period with unions. Municipalities
proposing to transfer employees to the state plan must demonstrate
that savings under this option will be 5 percent greater than
savings from redesign of the municipality’s plan.
The governor said the limits on collective bargaining will preserve
a meaningful role for unions while providing important savings for
cities and towns. Patrick and legislative leaders reached final
agreement on the plan on Friday, working with unions and municipal
leaders.
Students at nearly all of the state's 29 public higher education
campuses are facing higher charges in the wake of cuts in the
budget. Trustees for the University of Massachusetts, for example,
last month increased mandatory fees by an average 7.5 percent.
The state budget for the five-campus University of Massachusetts
dropped by 9 percent to $418 million, down from $462 million last
year. The university system, which provides about half its state
budget to the flagship Amherst campus, lost $37.8 million in federal
stimulus dollars.
The budget is balanced with about $175 million in cuts and use of
$185 million in reserves. The budget, seeking to compensate for the
loss of about $1.5 billion in federal stimulus, cuts $775 million in
expected growth of Medicaid, a federal-state program of health
insurance for the poor.
Medicaid is financed at $10.370 billion for the new fiscal year,
just $130 million more than the last fiscal year, after growing by
$1 billion between fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011, which ended June 30,
said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation.
Cuts in certain programs could be restored during the fiscal year.
Sen. Stephen M., Brewer, D-Barre, the chairman of the Senate Ways
and Means Committee, has said he expects "more than one" bill in the
upcoming fiscal year to add spending to the new budget, given the
improving economy.
Tax collections for fiscal 2011, scheduled to be reported this week,
are expected to be $700 million more than projections, Widmer said.
"It's a responsible budget," Widmer said. "It resists the
temptation, with increased tax revenues, to add to the bottomline."
Staff reporter Peter Goonan contributed.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
A Boston Globe editorial
Municipal health: A solid agreement for cities
Fiscally responsible town managers finally have the tools they need
to control the cost of providing health care to municipal employees.
It’s been a long battle with labor unions, but one worth up to $100
million in annual savings for cities and towns.
Governor Patrick is expected to sign a budget provision today that
will allow municipal managers to place their workers in the
less-costly Group Insurance Commission plan for state workers, or a
similar health insurance plan. Labor unions will maintain a voice at
the collective-bargaining table, but not the veto power to block
reasonable increases in co-payments and deductibles.
Labor pressure on Patrick and the Senate threatened to derail the
effort. That would have forced communities to cut back even more on
basic services - such as libraries and fire protection - in order to
maintain the generous health care policies for public employees. But
House Speaker Robert DeLeo remained stalwart throughout. In the end,
a compromise was reached that offers workers good health insurance
without killing Massachusetts cities and towns.
The Boston Herald
Monday, July 11, 2011
A Boston Herald editorial
Patrick caves to unions
The skids for a cave-in on municipal health care were being greased
even before the weekend barbecues could be lit. The signs were all
there. Gov. Deval Patrick had spent the better part of the week just
being too, too cute about how he wanted “a bill that delivers real
and meaningful savings for cities and towns in the short run and
also has a meaningful role for labor.”
He had been saying something akin to that since a week ago Sunday
during his “Face The Nation” appearance. This is the guy who
insisted when he first ran for governor that he would lower property
taxes but never did. He insisted the second time around that he
would, well, at least give cities and towns the tools with which to
control their rapidly rising health care expenses. Now he has jumped
into the organized labor tank — big time.
He was given a bill that had the potential to cut municipal health
care costs by an estimated $100 million a year. It had already been
somewhat watered down from the tough measure passed by the
Massachusetts House. It was a tough vote; too bad Speaker Robert
DeLeo didn’t hang in there with it. Labor thugs like outgoing (and
won’t he leave already) Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Robert
Haynes went ballistic. You know you’ve got a good bill for the
taxpayers when Bobby Haynes goes ballistic.
The Senate bill gave back more to the unions and the compromise
version split the difference.
But, no, even that wasn’t good enough for the governor. He wanted to
tip the scales toward labor even more — thus raising the larger
question of what the hell is he running for anyway?
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
|
