Left In Lowell

Rely On the Credit Card, or Fix the System?

11 Responses to “Rely On the Credit Card, or Fix the System?”

1. Shawn Says:
   July 15th, 2007 at 6:35 pm

   Seem to me Patrick failed Tewksbury big.

   They chose themselves to take a risk, and try a financial instrument that could solve a one year problem.

   The Governor responded by telling them no, and instead they should rely on a possible program of tax increases that nobody of merit in the state is supporting.

   Or, instead, he tells them to raise fees (which are more “harmful” to the regular taxpayer, because “taxes” are deductable and “fees” are not).

   Tewksbury wanted to step up and be responsible for themselves, the feel good nanny-government said “no” without giving them the fiscal support to solve the problem.

   You can ask the question whether it was the right choice to make, but they are the ones making the choice and taking the risk. To them its a real issue, not a philosophy question.

   They put their neck on the line, and got it chopped off by the Governor. He lost a lot of friends and support over this issue by forcing them to institute the “Deval Patrick Municpal Partnership Trash Fee” as they are calling it.

2. Mr. Lynne Says:
   July 16th, 2007 at 8:40 am

   Who do you think will wind up paying when dropping property values and revenue streams puts them through the floor? I take this as a pro-active step to prevent another Springfield or Quincy.

3. Lynne Says:
   July 16th, 2007 at 9:54 am

   Wow, Shawn, I’d hardly peg you for being for being one to think that foregoing a pay-go attitude to a budget to be a positive thing. Aren’t you being a little inconsistent to your conservative principles to be supporting Tewksbury’s move?

   Look, the state can’t afford another Springfield, and Tewksbury was being stupid. The handwriting is on the wall as to what would have probably happened. This is the worst time to pay by credit card, given that local budgets are up against prop 2 1/2 all the time as it is, and we’re having a property values crash. It was a future disaster waiting to happen.

4. Jay Booth Says:
   July 16th, 2007 at 12:05 pm

   Shawn, not to pile on here, but that is just plain dumb. Fiscal conservatism is not running deficits. I’d think you’d be advocating for them to either make the layoffs or raise the fees in this situation, that’s facing reality. Not to mention that to get to the point of considering borrowing money, they must have already run through all their reserve cash with fiscal deficits. What’re they gonna do next year, borrow twice the amount from 2010?

   Tyngsboro doesn’t use 2009 dollars for our 2008 budget. As a matter of fact, in the last couple years we’ve retailored our budget so that this year we’re using 600k in FY2007 dollars towards our FY2008 budget. Kicking the money forward adds stability. We made a couple years of borderline-unconscionable layoffs and now we’re slowly adding back positions and rebuilding our cash reserves because we got our financial house in order. Spending your free cash in the year it comes back PLUS then also borrowing more money is ridiculous.

   Especially when the lege just passed a budget that’s out of balance by 500 million, a quarter of the state’s reserve funds in one year. Cities and towns need to have a bunker mentality right now, and spending future revenue is the opposite of that.

5. Shawn Says:
   July 16th, 2007 at 1:35 pm

   Completely different issue.

   If they were trying this in Dracut, I would be all over them, and reporting the details of every step.

   What I don’t like is the fact that the town’s sovereignty is being impinged upon by the state burocracy.

   If they want to screw themselves, then they will be held responsible by their own taxpayers.

   They’re a busy little town there, much more commercial and industrial than Dracut, and they may have the wherewithal to handle this situation than we would. I don’t know all the facts of the financial manipulation that they are attempting (sound bytes and short quotes in the Sun are not enough for me to judge what they are doing).

   Conservatism does stand for responsibility for your own actions.. and that is what they are trying to do.

6. Mimi Says:
   July 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pm

   Shawn:

   Let ME pile on. You have to be kidding me, right? If their plan fails, and the state has to step in, will you pay my share of the bail-out?

   And you do not miss a chance to criticize Deval, do you? Even if it means compromising your own fiscal conservatism.

7. Shawn Says:
   July 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pm

   The state is not going to step in over 1.5 million that a town has decided to borrow (if that is the real, issue. Again, I have not read the plan.. have you?)

   Deval needs to have people shining the light on every decision.. he is the Governor. I havent seen much to agree with him on yet.

   Every plan involves adding billions to the budget, with little to no ability to provide the funding other than telling the towns and cities to go tax and fee themselves.

8. Jay Booth Says:
   July 16th, 2007 at 4:01 pm

   Come on Shawn, billions? You must have Deval mixed up with George W Bush. Deval’s budget was a lot closer to in-balance than the one the legislature passed, both on the revenue side and on the expense side. He came in and immediately made 5% cuts to every single budget. You could present his new initiatives in a vacuum and say increased spending by millions, maybe, but a billion is a thousand million, let’s keep our numbers straight here.

   Anyways I generally agree on matters of home rule except when it comes to accounting standards. Those laws are in place for a good reason.. recent events in Dracut (was that the accountant or the treasurer?) being a good example. Tyngsboro had an embezzling treasurer 20someodd years ago as well. Towns shouldn’t be allowed to run their year-to-year operating budget on a credit card, that’s what reserve funds are for. That’s something that should require a home rule petition and if they can’t make a good enough case then too bad, make the layoffs like the rest of us did.

9. Shawn Says:
   July 16th, 2007 at 9:48 pm

   He has proposed universal preschool and kindergarden, expected to add nearly a billion.

   He has proposed universal access to community colleges at almost a billion last I read.

   and those are just two off the top of my head.

   And I have always believed that cutting “across the board” the same percentage is actually a lack of leadership (I complain when my own town leaders say something like that).

   There are priorities. Public Safety, your responsibility to the wards of the state, these must come first. When you have a crisis, you can cut more in things like marketing, entertainment, parks, arts, etc.. but must cut less or not at all on the essentials.

   (and I didn’t know he did the 5% thing)

10. Jay Booth Says:
    July 17th, 2007 at 9:41 am

    Well, those are proposals. Until a bill appropriating the spending come in the context of a budget where there may or may not be offsetting cuts elsewhere, new sources of funding to account for the proposals, etc, it’s hard to call him spend-it-all Deval. If he puts forth legislation to push the budget another billion out of balance, I’ll be right there with you, but until then, it’s just PR and a statement of where he’d like us to ultimately go.

    I mean, if I was running for governor, I’d have proposals to give every taxpayer in the Commonwealth a free pony In the meantime, his proposed budget was closer to balanced (by 200 mil or so) than the one the lege wound up passing so I’m gonna call him relatively fiscally responsible for now.

11. Shawn Says:
    July 18th, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    A free pony!?!?

    We already get some much bulls*** in Massachusetts politics, lol, what would we do with all that generated by the horses? (not to mention the methane, are you disregarding global warming? lol)

Leave a Reply