Announcement

---

For those of who have been wondering why the Blog has not been updated, the short answer is that the Blog will be moved over to WordPress and resume in January. Apologies for not making that announcement sooner.

The reasons include that Blogger does not play well with tables -- of which I have many -- and that WordPress should allow for more customization and better search engine optimization.

Please stay tuned, and the new link will be provided shortly.

---

How much did the State aid the Harvard Pilgrim Turn-Around?

Megan Woodhouse has an interesting piece in the Boston Globe relative to how much the state helped in the turn-around. The article argues that a $58.5 million "accounting error" back in 2000, shortly after Baker took over at Harvard Pilgrim had the insurer teetering on the brink of insolvency. It was Democratic Attorney General Tom Reilly who rode to the rescue, argues the article, by petitioning the Supreme Judicial Court to put Harvard Pilgrim into receivership, thereby granting the organization protection from creditors.

Baker still gets credit in the article for his astute leadership of Harvard Pilgrim -- but the point of it is that the state and it's willingness to intervene should also be credited.

Pledge on No New Taxes

Joan Vennoichi has a story in the Boston Globe relative to newly-minted Gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker making the George H.W. Bush pledge on "read my lips: no new taxes." I got to go with Joan on this one: this isn't the smartest pledge to make. Even for the Governor's who ostensibly didn't raise taxes (see Mitt Romney) they ended up closing "tax loopholes" and raising fees through the roof. I don't think that really ends up saving the average taxpayer a lot of money.

Details on Governor's Vetoes

Although the Governor has published a document entitled "parchment" on his veto page, and that document does give the details of what the Governor has and has not vetoed, it's not really the most user friendly document.

First of all, it doesn't tell you the name of the items that the Govenror vetoed. To get that information you either must have memorized the items or go to a different document on the Governor's website.

Here at the budget blog, in order to be helpful to our loyal readers -- sparse though they may be -- we've created one document that lists all the line-item vetoes in chronological order, with the Governor's explanations, and with the language that the Governor proposes to delete from the line-items. Our doucment also includes the outside sections that the Governor proposes either to vetoe, or to substite for with new outside sections. It's all clickable below:

Where's the Veto message?

In the category of things that are not being published on the state website, I think we have to add the Governor's veto message, which has already received a bill number -- House 4139 -- but the text of which is nowhere to be found on the House website.

How long does it take to print the Governor's veto message? Didn't the Governor sign the budget back on June 26? Didn't the Governor publish his vetoes on his own website a couple of days later? How long does it take to format a bill for printing?

Governor's Fy 2010 Supplemental

Well, it didn't take long for the Governor to file the first supplemental budget for FY 2010. Normally one of those isn't filed until at least a few months into the fiscal year. This supplemental, according to the Governor, appropriates $269.4 million to "address immediate exposures identified for the upcoming fiscal year."

I guess that makes up for the $147 million in vetoes that the Governor just issued. Most of the dough ($70 million) is to continue funding the state-subsidized universal health care program adopted a couple of years ago under the Romney administration. The program, it turns out, has been more successful in getting the uninsured enrolled than the architects of the program actually thought it would be. I guess that cuts both ways, since the success must be funded.

A little Self-Congratulatory

It seems like the legislature is being a little self-congratulatory about the fact that they actually passed, and the Governor actually signed, the FY 2010 before July 1st, the beginning of the fiscal year. At least according to an article in the Boston Globe by Eric Moskowitz. Of course, that article also points out that "In the previous 10 years, Beacon Hill missed the start of the fiscal year seven times, with lawmakers and the governor blowing deadline by an average of 38 days." So bully for them for getting it done this year. Of course, I'm not sure I'd get carried away with the occasional success when the performance has so consistently been lacking.

The Unions have Miscalculated on this one

The Boston Globe reports this morning that the police and firefighter unions have filed suit challenging pension reform, claiming that the reform illegally strips them of benefits. Whatever the legal merits of that argument -- and I'm no expert on pensions -- the political fallout is clear. Here is an excerpt from the article:

---

Unions sue over pension changes Police, firefighters call overhaul illegal; Say it discriminates against disabled By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | July 3, 2009 Police and firefighter unions filed twin class-action lawsuits against the state yesterday, arguing that a new law designed to curb pension abuse illegally strips them of benefits guaranteed by the state constitution and federal law. The Boston Police Superior Officers Federation, Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, and Boston Firefighters Union Local 718 - on behalf of public employees statewide - assert in a suit filed in US District Court that a provision in the new law amounts to breach of contract. The law, they argue, unfairly reduces retiree benefits by limiting what kinds of compensation count toward their pension. Under the new rules, public employees can no longer use additional pay - such as educational stipends, uniform allowances, and the value of unused vacation and personal days - in their pension calculation. Most public employees, lawyers for the unions say, use such extras to raise their base pay substantially, which in turn boosts their retirement checks. A second suit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court by the Superior Officers Federation and the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, challenges a new calculation of benefits for police officers and firefighters who are injured on the job, contending that the new law discriminates against disabled workers by treating them differently than other workers. With the new pension law, disability benefits will be based on workers’ salaries for the year prior to when they became disabled, not the year prior to their retirement. It can take months, even years, for retirement boards to approve disability pension requests. In the meantime, employees out on injury leave are entitled to pay raises and cost-of-living increases. In the past, those pay increases would boost a worker’s disability pension by thousands of dollars a year, union lawyers said. Together, the two lawsuits represent a direct challenge to efforts at cracking down on pension abuse and excesses by some public employees, which have been highlighted by a series of stories in the Globe. If the suits are successful, public workers could see their old benefit levels restored and taxpayers could be forced to pay damages. Andrea Estes can be reached at estes@globe.com.

© Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

---

Now if you look at the reader comments that were posted in response to that article, the verdict is unanimous, and far from charitable:

---

READER COMMENTS (120)

Sort: Chrono Order | Latest First | Most Recommended

Report item as: (required) X

Obscenity / Vulgarity Hate speech Personal attack Advertising / Spam Copyright / Plagiarism Other

Comment (optional):

	stowe wrote: Union Scums! 7/2/2009 11:29 PM EDT Recommend (33) Report abuse Permalink
	bf5113 wrote: They were caught with their hands in the 'cookie jar' and are now suing to get the 'cookie jar' returned so that can continue stealing from it. What a bunch of jerks! They have no shame. 7/2/2009 11:49 PM EDT Recommend (43) Report abuse Permalink
	dislocatedworker wrote: Agree with both comments. Like the firefighter who was muscle building, and wasn't there a restraining order from a girlfriend? How many people on any disability are truly disabled. It hurts it for those who TRULY have a disability. There are many who milk the system. They could be your neighbors, ladies out meeting their friends for lunch, working under the table, etc. It is rampant. So sad people don't have integrity or pride. For those truly disabled, of course, they should receive everything coming to them! 7/3/2009 12:24 AM EDT Recommend (27) Report abuse Permalink
	pinopino wrote: Scr3w them. Dissolve these Unions. 7/3/2009 12:36 AM EDT Recommend (31) Report abuse Permalink
	pinopino wrote: These id1ots don't realize that the result of this is that many more investigations will be initiated and all the scumbags who have been faking disability will be busted. It's about time. That is exactly what the state wanted. 7/3/2009 12:38 AM EDT Recommend (22) Report abuse Permalink
	johnm4 wrote: Unreal... 7/3/2009 12:40 AM EDT Recommend (16) Report abuse Permalink
	DJLBoston wrote: Man these guys are bad. 7/3/2009 12:41 AM EDT Recommend (14) Report abuse Permalink
	phonyuser wrote: There really aren't too smart. This will just create more (well deserved) backlash. The next time the contract comes around they will get even less. How about we just cut out the pensions completely, like most private companies. If they don't like it, they can find new jobs. 7/3/2009 12:41 AM EDT Recommend (24) Report abuse Permalink
	Jane53 wrote: Oh give me a break!! These folks should try living like the rest of us for a change !! What they were doing was STEALING from tax payers!!! I have no sympathy for these people at all! 7/3/2009 12:42 AM EDT Recommend (25) Report abuse Permalink
	devilsadvocate wrote: No group in power in MA has any shame, nor (based on past performance) do they need to. Imagine that, people on the public dole might not get to pad their pensions! Imagine this - most people I know don't have pensions and have their 401K's suspended until further notice. But no, the legislators and public employees would rather go to court (another cost to taxpayers to litigate) and incur legal fees on both sides just to prove a point. Shameless. The more they cry poor, the less anyone who isn't on the state dole cares for what might be other legitimate concerns. Here's hoping the judiciary sits this one out.

Changes from Conference to Enacted

I thought that it might interesting to take a look at the question of what differences there are in the FY 2010 Conference Report and Enacted Budget with respect to the line-items, including the inside language. Basically, I was curious to see how House Counsel might have changed any of the inside language, and if any other things were added or dropped.

The table below sets forth all the changes that I found. These include:

• A few instances where quotes were added;
• Differences in whether "Internet" was capitalized (it should be);
• Differences in whether an "em" dash or "en" dash was used, and whether there were spaces around the dashes.

I'm happy to report that I did not find any other differences. In short, nothing nefarious was snuck in.

FY 2010 Budget has appeared on State Website

In an unusual show of efficiency and dexterity, the state website has already published the FY 2010 budget (Chapter 27 of the Acts of 2009). Of course, the published act does not include the Governor's vetoes. This document will have to be updated with those and, once they happen, the veto overrides.

Still no Bill Histories

It's July 1st -- we're at the end of the fiscal year and half way through the legislative year -- and the Legislature still has not managed to redesign it's bill history system to make it available to the public. As you can see below, the latest bill history you can find is for the previous session, the 185th session, for the 2007-08 legislative session.

I'm not unsympathetic to the difficulties of rewriting code and putting up a new system, but folks . . . isn't this now in the province of "ridiculous?"

Al Franken delcared the Winner

Remarkably enough, Al Franken was actually declared the winner of the second Minnesota Senate seat by the Minnesota Supreme Court. How about that? Took long enough. For those of you interested in the details, you can read the MN Supreme Court decision by clicking on this link.