“[...] that leaves two other ways of closing the deficit. Spending must be cut or taxpayers must pay more. Many political battles of the next few years will be fought on these simple lines, with tax payers on one side and the beneficiaries of public spending on the other. One imminent battle will be between taxpayers and public sector workers.”

More and more information, and more and more books, are being viewed online;
There are specific areas and groups who have less access to online resources;
The libraries are currently understaffed, and that will be more so if no changes are made;
The library hours will need to be cut down if no changes are made.

The mayor deserves praise for raising this issue and noting that we have to change with the times. Does that mean shuttering all the libraries. Heck no. We need libraries as physical spaces where children and moms, people who are employed and looking for information, people who are unemployed who are looking to better themselves, and anybody who wants to walk through the stacks can go.

But we also need more resources dedicated to staff, to hours at branches, and to online options in order to keep up with a number of “customers”. The outcry about closing some library branches strikes me as way out of line. Why don’t we take a look at other cities and see how many branch libraries they have per capita. We may want to have more. But we should know what we are doing and deciding. For example, a quick look at Manhattan, a little bitty slice of land with almost 1.7 million people, has 44 branches.

Boston, with three times fewer people, has 26? Again, let’s talk rationally about these things.

We need to figure out what library users need and ensure that we serve all needs, but I think we can do that without all the halberds raised.

In Partners’s disclosure, they note the rates they charge insurers could have been 18% lower in 2008, if government funded programs had covered their costs. (Yes, I am naively assuming that the insurers would pass that savings along to consumers.)

Put another way, Partners had negative operating margins of -33% on Medicare and -44% on Medicaid in 2009.

Also, floating around in the ether around the federal health care reform debate is a proposal to cut Medicare reimbursement by 21% (ah-ha, savings!). That’s not going to happen and if it did, it won’t help things.

So, the hospitals eat these losses and lose money, right? No, privately insured customers end up subsidizing the difference. Puts the “Medicare for All” argument in a different light doesn’t it?

So, am I advocating for a massive expansion of Medicaid and Medicare spending? No, I’m not. What I’m saying is that both these very expensive programs are also getting a hidden subsidy from private payers. Expanding either of them will increase that subsidy.

In a time of scarcity and aid cuts, municipal government should really exercise a “zero-tolerance” policy for the misuse of funds. And this issue also points to a bigger problem in local government, one of nepotism and corruption.

However, I would invite both state and local officials, and particularly  DPW and Parks and Recreation bosses T.J. McCarthy and Thomas Bellegarde, not to focus their efforts on finding scapegoats.  Yes, people who abused their authority should be held accountable.  But looking at a bigger picture and from a managerial standpoint: what processes and systems can be put in place in order to avoid these issues in the future?

Data analysis, combined with some basic performance management tools such as measuring  workers’ daily productivity could solve this issue. I – government- measure what my employees are accomplishing, I benchmark their results with my productivity goals, and I look for solutions that make them more efficient as workers and get me the best bang for my buck. And if someone wants to take a city owned vehicle for their purposes, I know right away, and can take action immediately.

Isn’t government (even local) a multi-million dollar operation? Why aren’t we demanding from our government to keep track of the outcomes municipal employees are producing like stakeholders demand reports from companies? It is OUR tax money, isn’t it?