Where's the pork?

It's interesting that Massachusetts legislators have not approved a final budget for Fiscal Year 2012 yet, despite the fact the fiscal year starts just days away on July 1.

The House and Senate adopted differing versions of the budget weeks ago. Since then, negotiators from both branches have been trying to resolve differences in a conference committee.

But, setting aside questions about the fiscal condition of the Commonwealth and value judgments about how state leaders are choosing to deal with them... the differences between House and Senate budget plans don't seem to be that controversial or substantial. Plus, in recent times, most of the interesting spending has been made mid-year in supplemental appropriation bills, not in the budget itself.

So, what's the hold up?

We're not sure. But, we can guess at several possible reasons.

It's possible that the House and Senate aren't really rushing to reach agreement. That could be out of laziness, or a deliberate attempt to stall and deprive Governor Patrick of a full ten-day window to review the budget before he issues vetoes. Or, perhaps a series of bad stories about the Legislature (Cusack, DiMasi, and now a Bulger in the news) has been distracting.

It's also possible that there is a lot of negotiation going on behind the scenes, but that it's not really about the budget at all. For example, it's possible that budget concessions are being used as chits to negotiate future deals on issues like casino gaming, which has been rumored to be waiting in the wings for later this session.

What's the real reason and when will be get a budget in place? Only time will tell.

Around the World in 80 Days

According to our planners, today marks the 80th day of 2011; the 12th week of the year.

And, according to the political page on Boston.com, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has been out-of-state for 23 of those days. That's more than one-quarter of the time. And, roughly half of that time was spent internationally.

But, while we think our traveling Governor is vulnerable to criticism for having been away from Massachusetts quite a bit lately, we do give him credit for at least attempting to address certain issues facing our state. Contrast that with the complete and utter silence of our full-time Legislature so far this year.

Oh, pardon us. The Legislature is still in the process of "organizing" itself after last year's elections. It takes time to assign new office space to everyone, dole out plum committee assignments, and process the many thousands of ground-breaking bills filed by legislators.

Right.

But, think about it. So far, the state has paid our 200 senators and representatives about $2.8 million in base pay so far in 2011 to do... um... pretty much nothing.

What have they really accomplished? Well, they froze unemployment insurance rates this year, which is good news for employers but also an action that was under deadline. They passed a reorganization plan proposed by the Governor, but that's a pretty small accomplishment after 4 years of the Patrick administration.

And, other than that.... Well, not a lot that we can see. A couple of sick leave banks and a local bill for Medford. Some hearings. A protest march or two outside the windows. But, nothing that would really affect the daily lives of people struggling to make it through a cold winter with lower salaries and higher gas prices.

Meanwhile, it was recently reported by our friends at Beacon Hill Roll Call that legislators raked in a whopping $462,546 worth of per diem payments last year.

Must be nice.

People on Beacon Hill sometimes wonder why legislators have a bad name with the electorate. We say, wonder no more. Tick, tock. People can't afford to wait for political action on important economic and public safety issues.

Presidential governing by bracket

If only all of life's conflicts could fit neatly into a nice little bracketed chart...

We're thinking that's probably what President Barack Obama was thinking recently as he proudly filled out his pick sheet for this year's NCAA basketball tournament.

Now, don't get us wrong. It's exceedingly cool that our rock star president has the wherewithal to pick college hoops champs live on television.

But, might he have had something better to do with his time?

Like, maybe, fix the economy, or solve foreign crises?

Then again, we're wondering if maybe there's something more at play.

Could it be that the president has found a new way to solve problems in the White House?

Just think about it.

How do you decide which world problem to address today? Well, just put them all into neat little brackets and... voila!

Need to choose how to spend money on new programs? Put 'em in a bracket.

Need to figure out whether existing tyrants or opposition forces should prevail in foreign conflicts? Put 'em head-to-head into brackets and see who wins.

Hey, this is easy. And totally fun.

So much fun, in fact, that we could see other politicians using it.

Governor Patrick, do you need to decide which new upstart company Massachusetts should invest in this week? Put 'em in a bracket. (Note: Evergreen Solar was his number one seed, but it got knocked out in the first round. Maybe next year.)

Massachusetts Legislature, do you need a plan for how people should get jobs in the probation department? We could just put 'em all into brackets...

Well, maybe not.

Sadly, most of life's problems don't get solved this way. They take leadership, not brackets, to address them successfully.

Boston Globe's Editorial Gets One Right on Liquor Licensing

Of all the editorial pages in Boston, the Boston Globe's isn't always the one we agree with the most. But today, we think they make the right call, and we applaud them for it.

In a strangely conservative fashion, today's Globe editorial calls for a dramatic increase in local control through the abolition of Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission and by ending legislative approval of local alcohol licenses.

Abolition of the ABCC is long since overdue. As the Globe says, it's an anachronism, as well as a traditional source of political cronyism and patronage. And, it makes much more sense for local licensing and enforcement authorities to regulate the sale of alcohol across our state. If anything, local authorities could handle licensing and enforcement under the direction of a (small) statewide regulatory commission, preserving statewide standards and acting as arbitrator when necessary.

One thing the Globe did not mention is that, in today's world, the award of licenses to sell alcohol is an important matter of economic development, particularly when it comes to restaurants. Restaurant growth is important in its own right, but eating establishments are also important accessory uses for larger economic development projects. And, any restaurant owner will tell you that it's a lot more difficult (or impossible) to get started if you don't have a liquor license. Local licensing authorities are completely capable of making these decisions without legislative meddling.

But if you want these changes too, don't hold your breath. Liquor licenses are an important pawn in the horse trading that goes on up on Beacon Hill. And taking them away from state pols isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

Problems with the "Four Loko" ban

Earlier this month, Massachusetts banned the sale of caffeinated alcoholic beverages and malt beverages that contain herbal or chemical stimulants (the most well-known beverage being "Four Loko").

We're not connoisseurs of these drinks and we acknowledge their harmfulness. So, we have no particular problem with their ban. But, we think it's worth noting a very interesting aspect of the ban that is being overlooked.

What actually happened here is the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (which is overseen by the state Treasurer) issued an emergency regulation to ban the sale of these drinks.

We think this is a poor precedent because this sort of policy ought to be set by the Legislature, which is in charge of making laws regarding the sale of alcohol (most of which are set forth in Chapter 138 of the General Laws).

There's a reason for that. Theoretically, the Legislature is supposed to be better-equipped than a constitutional officer to gather information about policy decisions, factor public input, and debate the issue. But, that didn't happen here.

Let's face it. There's no "emergency" behind these regulations; the "emergency" is that no one planned ahead for these beverages to be sold here and to lead to an under-age drinking problem. The Legislature is not known for its swift action addressing problems, but had there been a clear and present danger to public health, the Legislature could have issued a similar ban in an afternoon.

In addition, liquor store owners already faced with the complexity of complying with new and changing tax laws, now have to deal with an ever-changing list of banned products set forth in regulation (the regulation says new products can be added to the ban), and the potential penalty of having their license suspended.

At the end of the day, public safety is paramount. Having a ban in place is better than not having one. So, what's the danger here? The problem is a slippery slope of state law being made by people other than the Legislature, whether it's a constitutional officer, an administrative agency, or a court. The place for making laws is in the Legislature. And regardless of your opinion of our particular Legislature and what confidence you have in its abilities, we think it's still important to respect boundaries and keep things in their proper place.

Whatever the case, the ABCC's emergency ban is in effect for only 90 days. It will be interesting to see what the Legislature does after that time, or if a follow-up regulation will be issued.