Secretary Aloisi in Methuen

Posted on March 10, 2009 by billmanzi

Transportation Secretary James Aloisi was in Methuen tonight to testify before the Joint Committee on Transportation. The Secretary made remarks and took extensive questions from the Committee, leading to some pretty interesting exchanges. Because of the switch in venue we were not able to broadcast the event live or stream it over the internet, but I should have video up within a day or so. The Secretary noted at one point in his presentation that he had read a blog posting by Steve Baddour on Blue Mass Group. Pretty good stuff, and it shows the heft that Blue Mass Group has with some of the leading policy makers in the State.

This entry was posted in Methuen, State News and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Secretary Aloisi in Methuen

  1. Fred Mertz says:
    March 11, 2009 at 7:31 am

    I’ll have to say, sitting in the audience, it was clearly obvious that the Governor and the Transportation committee aren’t talking to each other: the Governor has had a bill filed for weeks, and the first question from the Committee is about the structure of a formula for regional equality, which they didn’t seem to know anything about.

    And it’s also clear why the Senator could not answer how much savings his bill would generate: it appears they just got that answer from external auditors.

    These folks haven’t even started the process yet, to my mind. Never mind explaining it to the voters. The better part of an hour and a half were spent between Aloisi and the Committee, we were just spectators.

    For the first time, even though I’ve read what’s out there (I think, anyway), I came to understand the Governor is not only talking about reform (eliminating waste), repair (roads, bridges, and rail lines), but also about new investment (in rail lines to the south shore, for instance). That’s why the 19 cents seems so high.

    I was also disappointed in the format: very little in the way of question / answer, only citizens standing up to speak their piece. I internally debated standing up to ask pointed questions, but thought the better of it.

    I will say that the gas station owners that testified gave powerful economic arguments: they are already at a 4.5 cent disadvantage to NH in gas, and cannot buy beer or cigarettes wholesale what they are being retailed for in NH. A fully enacted gas tax that rises with CPI might close every station within 20 miles of another state border …

    -FM

    Like

    Reply
  2. Jules Gordon says:
    March 11, 2009 at 8:58 am

    Fred, my friend,

    If you think these guys were not very well prepared, wait until they get behind closed doors and tuck it to us.

    I would like to give a little ribbing here, but I’ll just let you see the future under Patrick and Obama.

    Jules

    Like

    Reply
  3. PlyMan says:
    March 11, 2009 at 10:18 am

    Thanks for making the video of this important hearing available to the public. I wanted to see what people had to say, but couldn’t make the hearing. A cynic might suspect that the change in venue to a location where public broadcast was not possible was to help the advacates of a gas tax get caught in anymore obvious lies. Like these:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a9pbATOsRQ

    Like

    Reply
  4. Fred Mertz says:
    March 11, 2009 at 11:47 am

    Jules:

    Yeah, this is the sausage making in action, no doubt, but I would have thought that they would be a lot farther than they are, at least in terms of understanding both positions.
    Obama, I’m less worried about. Patrick …

    PlyMan:

    There was a video camera there, so I’m sure somewhere, this will be posted. It just wasn’t the Mayor’s camera.

    -FM

    Like

    Reply
  5. Jules Gordon says:
    March 11, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    Fred,

    Transportation legislation is akin to writing global warming algorithms. These guys are lawyers and haven’t a clue to how it is to be resolved. Besides the budget is maxed out and anything they do will require serious reductions in budget expenditures (programs) or additional taxes. You notice the that budget reduction is never discussed, like once enacted it can’t be eliminated.

    To top it off, we may have two or three years of additional revenue cuts coming.

    Jules

    Like

    Reply
  6. Fred Mertz says:
    March 12, 2009 at 7:51 am

    Jules:

    I’m not sure it’s quite that complicated: any budget has to take into account incoming revenue and outgoing debt, whether it’s yours, mine, or the Commonwealths. I think these guys might have a clue, but they’ve pushed this down the road for so long that now it’s a crisis, and there are no easy answers. The Dig debt along with the swaptions seem to have been the straws that broke everyone’s back. That’s why I think the Senator should be playing a little more proactively: quantify his cuts, get people looking for even more cuts (while quantifying their effects), so that we can finally see how deep the hole really is. I hear his sentiment about “reform before revenue”, but there needs to be detail behind it, otherwise, Aloisi is right, it’s a meaningless slogan.

    With what’s going on now (especially loss of revenues over the next few years, which I agree with), your assertions should get an interesting test.

    For more reading on the swaptions and to one of my favorite companies (UBS) employing one of my favorite people (Phil Gramm):

    http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=15041

    Plyman:

    Got this response from the Senator over on his blog:

    “The hearing was filmed by Methuen Community Television. You can look for the video on their website, http://www.methuentv.org and if it becomes available I will post it here as well.”

    I checked, the video is not yet posted.

    -FM

    Like

    Reply
  7. Jules Gordon says:
    March 12, 2009 at 10:34 am

    Say, Fred, do you believe the “Reform before Revenue” was so much smoke when it was first stated many months ago?

    Everybody needs more revenue. The State will take more from us than the federal government provided in its so called stimulus plan.

    If we don’t get busy reducing the budget we will see raises in gas taxes (tied to inflation yet), tolls and anything these fellows think of.

    I only hope there is no inflation. That will kill us. Won’t kill the state lrgislators, though, we gave them raises periodically, also tied to inflation.

    Jules

    Like

    Reply
  8. Fred Mertz says:
    March 13, 2009 at 8:00 am

    Jules:

    I can’t parse your first line: if you mean that Senator Baddour was blowing smoke all this time, then I don’t believe you. He’s got something there, but he hasn’t done the legwork and quantified it enough to be ready for the voters. We don’t know how far what he proposes goes to fixing the gaping hole in the budget.

    I’ve posted before: I have no doubt that taxes are going up. The Dig will haunt us until it’s paid off. But I want to have the sense that someone downtown understands how to do that as quickly and tax-efficiently as possible.

    Leaders don’t ask for the position: leaders lead. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. That’s the way I always thought of it.

    If you meant something else, clarify?

    -FM

    Like

    Reply
  9. Fred Mertz says:
    March 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    This is a bookmark to remember, from the Senator’s blog site.

    http://masstransfortomorrow.blogspot.com/2009/03/senate-president-murrays-testimony.html

    Senate President Therese Murray claims that the Senate bill (reform alone) balances the transportation budget for the first two years (which, I gather, doesn’t include the MBTA).

    ”
    And we also have to ask if the need for an increased gas tax has been fully investigated. The Senate’s plan, through comprehensive reforms alone, maintains an operational balance during the new Authority’s first two years. By consolidating and utilizing shared resources, the new Massachusetts Surface Transportation Authority (MSTA) would provide our transportation system with significant savings and greater efficiencies. This is what we owe the public –thoughtful, meaningful reform and transparency –NOT an ultimatum of higher tolls or a new earmarked gas tax. We’re not “dithering” with REFORM BEFORE REVENUE … It’s real…Just ask the toll- and tax-payers.
    ”

    -FM

    Like

    Reply
  10. Jules Gordon says:
    March 14, 2009 at 9:34 am

    Fred,

    Democracy, by its nature is in efficient. The reason behind the large legislative population is to discuss, compromise and discuss some more. How can you get efficiency out of that, especially when you take into account the cornucopia of competing interest brought to bear on the process. This creates the sausage effect.

    You are right though, the problem will be solved by raising taxes because that is what the Massachussetts political system always does.

    Welcome to Taxachussetts.

    Jules

    Like

    Reply
  11. Fred Mertz says:
    March 15, 2009 at 6:07 am

    Jules:

    Wow. See, you DO understand democracy.

    There’s hope for you yet!

    Call me when the Dig is paid off …

    -FM

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment