Posts filed under 'Economic Opportunity'
The Milken Institute does a quadrennial review of “technology and science assets, and their ability to leverage those resources to achieve economic growth.” The 2008 report (entitled 2008 State Technology and Science Index), released in tandem with the 2008 San Diego BIO International Convention, brings good tidings for Massachusetts. We lead the nation, with Maryland, Colorado and California taking up the following three state slots.
All good news. But the press release notes a shocking finding:
Regional competition has intensified since the last release of the index in 2004. Not only are states competing against each other for human capital and resources, but countries like China and India are raising the stakes to a global level.
Uhm, joking. For data junkies, take a view of the interactive link, which provides all the measures and stats.
June 20th, 2008
Glad to see the Boston Globe editorializing on the virtues of leasing out at least one of the state’s assets– the Ponkapoag Golf Course.
Earlier in the week, a news article chronicled the poor condition of the course. It really must be read to be believed and there’s an estimate that it will take $35 million to properly fix the course. Given that the Department of Conservation and Recreation has a number of claims on its budget, not the least of which is unsafe bridges, leasing out the course makes sense.
In 2006, Pioneer looked at a previous leasing effort with State-owned skating rinks and found that the leasing program resulted in greater capital investment, increased attendence, longer hours and seasons, and continued affordability.
Good for the Globe and for State Senator Brian Joyce’s efforts to lease the course out.
June 18th, 2008
To the south comes a lot of energy around advancing wind power. Don’t expect T. Boone Pickens, his 667 wind turbines or $2 billion in investment in the wind sector to come in li’l Rhodey. But Carcieri has structured a bidding process that could shape a great addition to the grid. In a press release today, RI Guv Donald Carcieri’s office notes:
At the May 27th deadline, seven companies had submitted proposals to the State of Rhode Island to construct and operate an off-shore wind farm designed to generate 1.3 million megawatt-hours per year of renewable energy.
The Guv seeks to reach the goal of “achieving 15% of our energy from wind.”
Under Governor Carcieri’s plan, the state will review bids on the basis of total cost to Rhode Island ratepayers, the qualification and experience of the bidder in constructing wind projects, and the number of jobs and the amount of tax dollars to be created. The state plans to award a contract to the best bidder, who will then begin the process of seeking the necessary regulatory permits. An evaluation team will review the seven proposals over the next couple of months.
June 6th, 2008
MassInc published a nice piece of research recently that analyzed state spending and held a good forum on it.
The author of the research paper, Cam Huff, found that Medicaid was growing like crazy:
Medicaid spending totaled $7.4 billion in 2006, an increase over 1987 of more than $4.5 billion, or 163 percent. This percentage growth was almost five times that of the budget as a whole. Medicaid’s share of the budget rose from 13 percent to 26 percent between 1987 and 2006. Increases in Medicaid were two-thirds of the overall growth in state spending.
And its notoriously difficult to figure out why:
the program has become progressively more difficult to understand. While it, like the health care system as a whole, is inherently complex, its daunting jargon and baroque accounting raise high barriers to comprehension. The state budget process does little to shed light on how the program operates and what is driving up its costs.
But it’s where the money is, when spending growth is being considered. At its simplest, Medicaid is a short equation:
Eligible Populations X Take-up Rate X Covered Benefits X Utilization Rate X Reimbursement Rate
So which one do you want to cut back on to control costs? And what are the unintended consequences of cuts in each area?
I don’t have the answers here, but this is the real spending puzzle for state policymakers to wrestle with.
May 2nd, 2008
Maybe this is just news to me, but I was interested to read Dan Bosley (Chair of the House Economic Development Committee) sharp comments on the Department of Revenue. It’s a long quote, but he makes a number of criticisms that are worth hearing:
I am very leery of [DOR's] numbers for good reason. In this bill, their revenue figure for the administration’s proposal was tens of millions greater than their figure for House generated revenues even though the language of the bill was identical coming out of committee! This is not the first time this has happened, raising, I think, legitimate questions about their numbers. In the Life Science bill, my committee asked for an analysis of extending the Governor’s tax breaks without the yearly limitations included in his bill. We asked several times and were told they could not answer the question nor should they as the Governor’s bill limited tax credits to $25 million per year. Not only is it not their role to refuse a request based on policy, but it calls into question the honesty in delivering numbers in a timely and accurate manner. After being requested again by House Ways and Means, a report was sent to us on the effect of the administration’s suggested tax credits. In looking at the numbers, it was immediately apparent that the numbers were suspect. One company had given us a figure, based on their tax liability that was larger than the DOR number for every life science company eligible for this credit. The second set of numbers we received were just as bad. I believe that the Department of Revenue based on their responses, is more interested in setting policy than enforcing it. It is the responsibility of the Governor and the Legislature to set tax policy. The Department of Revenue should provide revenue analysis that is not tainted by politics or policy.
And his remedy is intriguing:
I believe we need an independent budget office to give us honest estimates without political pressure from any side. We need an office like the Congressional Budget Office – bipartisan and independent to study all our fiscal and revenue proposals for their cost and financial impact. This is the only way we can get numbers that are beyond question.
April 30th, 2008
The Commonwealth has a bunch of pots of money lying around in various public and quasi-public entities that are supposed to ‘invest’ in various type of companies — technology start-ups, struggling manufacturers, etc.
No one has ever demonstrated that they make anything more than a tiny marginal impact on our economy and no one, absolutely no one, asks the “but for” question– if the money was spent elsewhere or, g-d forbid, returned to taxpayers, would it have a greater impact.
WBZ’s I-Team reports on the Emerging Technology Fund, a $50 million fund, and finds that it has created very few jobs, is overcounting the few jobs it actually creates, and now claims not to be all that interested in new jobs.
Its not unlike the Mass Technology Development Corporation, a state-backed venture fund , that has made some money (but declined to return its profits to the state). But it makes very few investments — 3 new investments in the last fiscal year — and usually invests with other VCs, which prompts me to ask — why are state funds needed for this purpose?
But they are spending their money on something — lavish parties and massive ‘retention’ bonuses for long-term employees.
April 29th, 2008
1) In response to her comment on my post yesterday, I defer to my learned colleague, Amy Dain. I had not considered that, as public ways, sidewalks can’t be blocked. However, I might argue that, rather than attempt to regulate sidewalk dining, the New Bedford City Council and Mayor Lang could simply pass an ordinance that allows businesses permitted to serve food and/or drink to place tables on sidewalks, within the frame of the storefront, extending from the storefront to the curb and providing for a path through the tables so many feet wide to accommodate passing pedestrians.
I suppose it is the underlying mindset I question, the assumption that if something is unregulated it is therefore prohibited. I believe we should start from the opposite assumption, that, if we wish to prohibit something, then, and only then, do we regulate it.
2) In other news, after weeks of trying to get Hillary Clinton in a clinch so as to better absorb the body blows she’s delivering, Barack Obama has returned to some of the rhetoric that attracted me to him in the first place. Once again, Mr. Obama demonstrated that he is willing to challenge Democratic orthodoxy. This from Slate:
McCain will have trouble beating the Obama who showed up on Fox News Sunday, giving a highly effective interview to Chris Wallace. It included this bait for Hillary:
“I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.”
Obama cited not just “merit pay” but also “experimenting with charter schools,” which he said has gotten him “in trouble with the teachers union.”
April 29th, 2008
Its a House-Administration lovefest over at Blue Mass Group. David Guarino (from the Speaker’s Office) and Doug Rubin (GOV’s Chief of Staff) get all lovey-dovey in the comments section of a post by Guarino on the House Ways & Means budget.
April 18th, 2008
A little-noticed provision in the housing bond bill, inserted by the Senate and supported by the Patrick administration, will require that all affordable housing projects pay ‘prevailing wage’ on construction.
The article in today’s Globe cites a Mass Housing Partnership study that found such provisions increase costs by 34%.
In the words of a leading housing advocate:
“It’s likely to increase the cost of developing affordable housing significantly,” said Aaron Gorstein, executive director of the Citizens Housing and Planning Association, an affordable housing umbrella group. “It could lead to fewer units being available for low- and moderate-income families.”
April 17th, 2008
Next Posts
Previous Posts
