The 5% solution - tax & burn; and a bit about culling the herd

The governor's full budget plan is out.  If I am reading it right, total gross school aid up a whooping $22,500.00.  Total gross local aid is up a mind boggling $26,500.00.  I haven't seen the state and county charges yet, but my prediction is the increase on that side will come close to equaling, and quite possibly be more than the increase in aid, i.e. a potential net deficit.  

In addition to the state and county charges, I still need to local at the "pass through" figures.  This is money that gets included in your aid package, but must go to specific purposes, which in the past have essentially been items that aren't in a local budget, i.e. the money given has no offset effect to what you must spend.

It isn't clear from a quick read as to whether all components have been listed on the state site yet.  However what is listed is not at all promising.  The potential missing pieces involve aid/reimbursement  for money spent for mandate expenses which will most probably see expenses in the upcoming year outpace any increases.

The most disheartening news, and I truly mean this, is the addition of the concept of of an "Annual  Formula Local Aid" program.  In a nutshell, the intent is to provide for "equitable distributions".  Past history has shown that when government uses that term, it means the suburbs and well run communities will see less and the cities will see more.  

Think the same wealth based formula used to determine the amounts Fairhaven, Dartmouth and New Bedford pay as local contributions to the regional school district.  

Think about how simply father behind the eight ball the bulk of the state communities are going to get. 

Think, someone please think.

You want to make aid equitable.  Seriously,  any community that fails to utilize its tax increase under Prop. 2 and 1/2 should receive a decrease in aid equal to what it could have raised locally.  Communities should be required to do what they can before being rewarded with more OPM .

I am hoping I am missing something.  I am hoping my calculations are off.  I hope I am half asleep reading the information.

How does one propose to increase total state spending by 5%; propose to tax people significantly more (and yes the gum and candy tax is once again being proposed, in addition to a mileage tax, gasoline tax, registry fee increase, and rumor has it an air that you breath tax; and, come up with this kind of aid package?

The budget proposal relies on $1.2 billion in new revenue, much from sources that do not currently exist or through means that will require legislative action.  

Simply put, the governor presents a budget not based on existing reality, and in my mind not on realistic expectations.

It is smoke and mirrors.  It is once again a failure to accept reality.  It has the potential of being a real nightmare in the local budget process.  

He needs the legislature to essentially back all the components of his revenue scheme.  Even in the world of fractured fairy tales, I can see significant components of that scheme being DOA at the statehouse.

Creative budgeting?  Seriously?

Can we stop trying to be creative and simply try working within an existing framework for say just a two year period to stabilize that?

Yes I want rail.  I wanted it twenty years ago to.  I don't want it at a cost that in the local term is going to be disastrous.  How about simply acknowledging it is time to put the South Coast to the head of the line.  How about recognizing that sometimes other things simply must wait.  

I have to stop on this one here, because if I don't i will lose it even more.

Okay, moving on ...

As is the case, it being Thursday morning, I took a moment or two to read The Fairhaven Neighborhood News. 

There is an article about the last Fin Com meeting and the Selectmen's meeting which in part addressed Fin Com.

I don't often feel the need to address thing as reported in any paper as pertains to myself.  Quite frankly, it often doesn't concern to any point where I even remotely loose sleep over it.  I don't think I have ever bothered to write to any paper about the contents of an article. It could have happened, but after twenty years of involvement who can remember.

I could write a letter in this case, but then I wouldn't have the time for the blog, so .... in this particular instance, I feel the need to say something.  

First and foremost, watch the meeting.  It will be playing on the govt. access channel.  What was said was said, there is no escaping the fact.  I do feel however that there is no need to try and escape any fact.

More importantly, while I understand the concept headlines pique interest, I in no way shape or form feel the DOR threatens the Finance Committee independence.  Neither do I remember stating the political Independence of the Finance Committee is threatened.  If I did, well it will be on the tape.  

I can understand how one might assume that was the motivation perhaps behind what I did say, but it is somewhat an erroneous conclusion,  Let's start out with appointments by a Town Moderator.  If that's what is decided on, no problem by me.  My position was to point out that such a manner of appointment does not do away with the criticisms leveled against the present method.  I am pretty sure I distinctly pointed out past instances of "political" decisions affecting appointments under the present method.

As far as a committee in excess of seven, well again look at the tape, and read past blogs.  It is a personal opinion about committee size.  I think I also expressed my sentiments as it relates to the present Fin Com and its size during the meeting.

As to fighting tooth an nail, accurate 100%.  The statement however relates to a potential method of appointment, not to any actual proposal.  I think it is important to simply state that I don't see any conspiracy lurking in the shadows.  Just as I felt it important to note at the meeting, appointments should not be made by any board of committee.

The article per se does not in fact bother me however it just strikes me as there being the need to take in the whole discussion to bring some of the points highlighted into much clearer focus.

Speaking of focus, the FNN also reports a vote by the selectmen of supporting a fin Com of up to eight members.  Seriously, eight members?  I missed that meeting and will have to catch it.  Why would you even consider an even number for such a committee?  Maybe there is a clue during the meeting.

Clues.  Everywhere to be found, but it seems very well hidden.

That's it for today.  Enjoy the heat wave (I think it is suppose to get into the mid 20s).  As always, be safe.