Be sure to check out my recent appearances on:

RushRadio 1200’s Jeff Katz Show

WRKO’s Tom & Todd Show

and my interview with WBZ Radio’s Jon MacLean

I just released this statement about Cahill’s troubling budget ignorance:

“This is just another example of Tim Cahill’s protecting big spending and the status quo on Beacon Hill.  The next Governor is going to have to be willing to make tough choices and big decisions on the budget, and Charlie Baker will.  We know Governor Patrick doesn’t have what it takes to run the state effectively and to control spending, today Treasurer Cahill reaffirmed that he doesn’t have the knowledge or the willingness to bring about change either.”

Governor Patrick’s budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2011 just doesn’t add up.  Instead, it continues to expand government spending at an unsustainable level.  The governor has yet to embrace even the most basic reform measures that are needed to bring state spending under control and to assure the residents of Massachusetts that their tax dollars are being spent wisely.

Last year, the governor resorted to rampant tax and fee increases to balance the budget, and it still wasn’t enough to avoid 9C cuts.  The residents of Massachusetts are tired of being asked to bail out Beacon Hill when there is no accountability from their elected officials, but the governor still refuses to implement something as simple as a wage and hiring freeze to tame out-of-control government spending.

The day of reckoning has arrived.  By some accounts, we are facing a structural deficit of as much as $3 billion in Fiscal Year 2011, yet the governor continues to rely on one-time fixes to bridge the gap between spending and revenues without undertaking fundamental reforms in the way state government operates.  Why won’t he promote privatization by repealing the Pacheco Law, or move MassHealth recipients onto managed care plans?  These are just a couple of steps the state can take right now to realize immediate savings.

Governor Patrick’s latest budget shows that after three years in office, he is still unwilling to make the tough decisions that are needed to ensure the Commonwealth’s long-term fiscal stability.  We’ve had enough of the governor’s quick fixes and lack of follow-through; what we really need is a commitment to fiscal discipline and spending reforms, both of which are missing from the governor’s proposal.

Unfortunately, you’d be hard-pressed to find any significant job creation plan coming from Gov. Patrick or the legislature.

The state’s record on job creation over the past three years has been a colossal failure. The Patrick administration continues to pursue a discredited policy of choosing winners and losers when he should be pursuing a statewide economic development plan that will assist all employers and promote the type of job creation the commonwealth so desperately needs.

The Patrick administration is enamored with high-profile, “sexy” industries, at the expense of those companies that employ the vast majority of the state’s work force. Rather than trying to help all businesses, the governor has instead embraced tax credits for certain select companies in the life sciences, environmental and Hollywood film industries, with taxpayers seeing little return for their investment.

Evergreen Solar is a classic example. The company, which manufactures silicon wafers and cells for solar panels, received $58.6 million in taxpayer-subsidized state funding assistance to open its new factory at Devens last year. But after posting $167 million in losses, Evergreen announced Nov. 4 that it would be shifting its solar panel assembly work to China, jeopardizing hundreds of local jobs.

Just last week, the Patrick administration moved ahead with plans to invest $9 million in federal stimulus funding for the construction of a pedestrian footbridge over Route 1 in Foxboro connecting two parking lots owned by New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, a multibillionaire.

I enjoy the Patriots as much as anyone, but why should taxpayers be footing the bill for a billionaire businessman who could easily invest his own money in the project or seek out private investors?

One of the biggest boondoggles foisted upon the public has been the state’s accounting of its federal stimulus spending. In addition to the questionable Foxboro deal, the Boston Globe recently uncovered details indicating that the Patrick administration’s “official” figure of 12,374 jobs “saved or created” in Massachusetts has been grossly overstated.

According to the Globe, many federal stimulus recipients have “miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.”

Bridgewater State College, for example, claimed it created 160 full-time student work-study jobs, but the Globe reported “at most one new full-time job was created.”

Community Action of Greenfield counted employee pay raises as 90 jobs created, when in fact not a single new job was produced. The list of phantom jobs is even longer, and the true number might never be known.

One approach the state could take to promote real jobs growth is to adopt the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce’s recommendations for a “3 in 3″ investment incentive, which would apply a reduced 3 percent capital gains tax rate to Massachusetts start-ups held for three years or longer.

Massachusetts is home to many world-class colleges and universities whose promise of a quality education allows us to attract many young and talented people from across the country and around the globe. The problem is, the state’s anti-business policies ultimately drive these individuals away.

Small start-ups that are incubated at local universities may launch here, but when it comes time to grow they are moving to the Carolinas, to California, even to New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

The reason for this exodus is simple: Massachusetts has one of the worst business climates in the nation, including high unemployment insurance rates, huge workers compensation rates, and expensive electrical and water rates, all of which contribute to the high cost of doing business here. Many state regulations are passed without any consideration given to how they might impact businesses, and this over-regulation has made the state less competitive.

Employers, both large and small, have told me they want to see more consistency in the state’s business tax policies. The state has changed the corporate tax code three times in the past decade alone, with the most recent changes saddling businesses with an additional half a billion dollars a year in taxes.

Employers see more changes on the horizon with the global warming bill being implemented and health care costs skyrocketing. They will not expand here and they will not grow jobs here if they cannot plan for the long term.

These are some of the challenges the commonwealth is facing. If the governor and the Legislature are serious about positioning the state for long-term job growth, then they must stop choosing winners and losers and instead pursue a statewide economic development plan that will treat all Massachusetts employers equally and create an environment that will encourage businesses to locate and expand here.

Instead, the message coming out of the Legislature and the corner office during the last couple of weeks seems to lack any real sense of urgency.

I couldn’t help but think of Patrick’s campaign promise when he signed the $27.4 billion Fiscal Year 2010 state budget, which contains over $1 billion in new taxes and fees but no property tax relief. In fact, it cuts unrestricted local aid by $377 million, which will only make communities more reliant on property tax revenues to sustain critical municipal services in the year ahead.

Adding insult to injury, the governor is playing a “fiscal shell game” of his own with the budget.

On the same day he vetoed $364 million in budget spending, Patrick filed a $269.4 million supplemental spending plan.

The governor chose not to veto any of the new taxes and fees contained in the budget.

Instead, he trimmed almost $147 million from various line items, including funding for education, the state’s trial courts, higher education and services for children and families. He also held back $217 million earmarked for the transfer of seven county sheriffs’ offices.

The governor vetoed $25 million for MassHealth senior care, $2.5 million for services for children and families, and $1.1 million for the Women’s, Infants and Children’s (WIC) program. These are programs that impact some of our most vulnerable residents.

Patrick also cut $2.25 million in regional library aid and $3.5 million set aside for the “foundation reserve” account.

This account has helped many communities address shortfalls in their local school budgets, and should have been spared from the chopping block.

Using the money he vetoed from the budget, Patrick is hoping to fund several initiatives in his supplemental budget that were not included in the operating budget.

Some of these initiatives have already been rejected by the Legislature, but Patrick insists they represent critical priorities that are “essential to our state’s short- and long-term economic progress.” I have to question some of the governor’s “priorities,” particularly his decision to restore $400,000 for a Washington, D.C. office.

Both the House and the Senate had refused to fund this line item in their respective budgets because it was felt the office represented an unnecessary luxury during a time of economic uncertainty and cost-cutting. Previous governors have also staffed a D.C. office, but always funded it through their own administrative accounts, not through a separate line item.

The governor also wants to provide another $10 million in “guaranteed” incentives for the life sciences industry. The operating budget already includes $10 million for this purpose, but it is contingent on the state ending Fiscal Year 2009 with a surplus.

Under Gov. Patrick, life sciences companies and the film industry have enjoyed “favored industry” status, reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in tax subsidies. What the state really needs is a broad-based economic recovery plan that will assist all businesses, not just a select few.

The supplemental budget also seeks to expand the bottle bill by making non-carbonated beverages, juices and sports drinks subject to a five-cent deposit at the point of purchase. This will cost taxpayers an additional $20 million a year, on top of all the other taxes and fees they will soon be paying.

It’s a sad day for the state’s taxpayers.

Not only do they not get any property tax relief, but thanks to the governor’s “fiscal shell game,” they are about to get socked with over a billion dollars in new taxes and fees to help clean up the state’s fiscal mess.

The fact that none of the new revenues raised by the 25 percent sales tax increase and the new alcohol tax was dedicated to mitigating reductions in local aid has rightly angered municipal officials and left them scrambling to fill the holes in their budgets. Rather than dedicating a portion of the new tax revenue to local aid, the Senate opted instead to pass other proposals like a pair of local option taxes, which will allow communities to impose a 2 percent meals tax and an increased hotel/lodging tax but won’t raise anywhere near the revenues needed to plug the local aid gap.

Even an attempt to make it easier for cities and towns to control health care costs was watered down to the point that most municipal officials believe it would actually be worse than the system that is already in place.

Unfortunately, it did not have to be this way. The Legislature could have decided to make a serious effort to change the way the state does business to save money and create efficiencies. There were plenty of innovative ideas being floated by budget watchdogs and good government advocates. I myself offered over $1 billion in cost-saving ideas that would have freed up money that could be shared with cities and towns. This would have prevented any need for a tax increase – state or local.

One amendment I proposed would have repealed the Pacheco Law, an anti-privatization measure that makes it difficult for the state to outsource certain programs and services, even if a private vendor can do the work more efficiently and for less cost. The Senate voted 11-28 against an outright repeal which could have saved taxpayers between $150 million and $300 million per year.

I also called for a one-year wage and hiring freeze for state agencies, which reflects what is happening in the private sector, where pay raises are almost unheard of. With many private sector employees facing layoffs or taking pay cuts, the state should not be handing out raises or expanding its workforce. If the state is broke and can’t pay for vital services, pay raises shouldn’t even enter the discussion. The Senate rejected my amendment – which would have saved $140 million – by a vote of 9-28.

I also offered an amendment requiring all Medicaid participants to enroll in a managed care plan. This is a reasonable approach that works in most other states and would have generated $150 million in additional savings for Massachusetts, which currently dedicates 40 percent of its budget to health care. The amendment was defeated on a voice vote.

If just these three reform proposals had passed, they would have produced more than a half-a-billion dollars worth of savings, a portion which could have gone to restore local aid funding.

Last October, as state revenues started to collapse, I released a public statement citing five principles that would guide me when voting on budget matters, the most important being that local communities should be protected from budget cuts to the greatest degree possible.

The initial Senate budget clearly failed in this regard and I could not support it. In fairness to my Democratic colleagues, the Senate took up the budget shortly after the state’s revenue projections were downgraded and budget writers were faced with a deficit much greater that what was faced by the House when they worked on their version of the state spending plan.

The entire House budget debate turned out to be an exercise in futility because the budget was already $2 billion out of balance the moment it was passed. Essentially, the House was able to please everyone and leave all the difficult decisions to the Senate.

Unfortunately, the Senate dropped the ball when allocating funding. The Senate should have prioritized local aid and services for the developmentally disabled, the elderly and other vulnerable populations first. Instead, it funded a hodgepodge of programs, some of which are of questionable value.

State revenues are not expected to rebound completely for another 4-5 years. Knowing this, it is imperative that the Legislature have a clear understanding of what the state’s core mission should be so that, moving forward, we can properly allocate the limited funds we have to support local aid and other services that benefit the state’s most vulnerable residents. And at the same time, local communities have an added obligation to tighten their belts and ensure that the precious revenue that they do have is spent wisely.

The proposal to raise the sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent could not have come at a worse time. Unemployment is on the rise, many long-time businesses are either closing or moving out of state, and consumers are cutting back on discretionary spending.

Coming on the heels of a half-billion-dollar corporate tax increase that took effect in January, the sales tax proposal represents yet another setback to business owners who are trying to keep their heads above water against a rising tide of red ink and declining sales. It practically guarantees consumers will head to New Hampshire or use the Internet to avoid paying the tax.

Many business organizations have come out strongly against the sales-tax increase, saying it will hurt employers, particularly small “mom and pop” operations. An April 2009 Beacon Hill Institute analysis warned that such an increase “would ripple through the state’s economy destroying jobs and income, and shifting sales out of state, all the while making the state less competitive.”

In a recent survey of its members, Associated Industries of Massachusetts found that 42 percent had reduced their employee work hours, and 46 percent had already laid off workers or were preparing to do so. Fifty-five percent of the companies surveyed had frozen salaries for 2009, while 86 percent had “altered staffing plans” — and that’s without factoring in a sales-tax increase.

Many people fear for their jobs, and the feeling is understandable given recent increases in the state and national unemployment rates.

What can be done to protect jobs for Massachusetts residents? We can start by making sure the Legislature stops passing laws and policies that are so contrary to other states’ that they drive businesses away.

I recently met with the president of the fourth largest pharmaceutical company in the United States, who told me he has to conduct business differently in Massachusetts than he does in the other 49 states. His company has the third largest concentration of employees in the commonwealth, but he told me he would never expand here and is now considering moving employees out of state.

The sweeping changes in corporate tax laws that took effect in January have also had a negative impact. The Organization for International Investment which represents U.S. subsidiaries of multinational corporations that employ over 173,000 people in Massachusetts, recently advised members to “suspend consideration of new investments and expansion in Massachusetts” because of these changes.

Our state continues to fare poorly in many national business surveys. According to the 2007 Cost-of-Doing-Business Index, conducted by the Milken Institute, Massachusetts is currently the fourth-worst state in the country, behind Hawaii, New York and Alaska.

Massachusetts fares only slightly better in Chief Executive Magazine’s 2009 “Best & Worst States” survey, where it was ranked the fifth worst state for job growth and business. The rankings are based on a variety of factors, including regulation, tax policies and infrastructure.

If Massachusetts wants to remain competitive, promote jobs creation and expand its economic base, we need to create a more favorable business environment. That means eliminating the excessive corporate taxes and onerous business regulations that are forcing companies to close and driving employers out of state. But first and foremost, we need to deep-six any attempts to hike the sales tax, which is anti-consumer and anti-business.

Most long-suffering Massachusetts taxpayers are familiar with this saying, as well as Judge Gideon J. Tucker’s 1866 statement “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.” If Gov. Patrick has his way, everyone will soon know that both of these statements still ring true.

To help close out a $1.1 billion shortfall in this year’s budget, and to address a projected $3 billion deficit for the new fiscal year that begins on July 1, Patrick is counting on the Legislature to quickly approve a host of new taxes. Lots of taxes. At least $587 million worth, at last count.

Hold on to your wallets. Rather than pursuing reforms and ways to make government more efficient, the Patrick administration’s first response for addressing our fiscal crisis is to just tax, tax, tax.

We first got a glimpse of the governor’s fondness for tax revenues last year when he aggressively pursued a plan to implement sweeping corporate tax law changes that now cost Massachusetts businesses an additional half-billion dollars a year. These new revenues will cost the state a whole lot more in the long run, however, as many businesses are already starting to put planned investments and expansions on hold and looking to other states that have less onerous tax laws.

Last year also saw the adoption of a new $1-a-pack tax on cigarette sales, giving Massachusetts one of the highest taxes in the country. As breathtaking as these two tax increases were, they pale in comparison to what Patrick has offered up so far this year. Here’s what the governor has in store for taxpayers.

Gas tax: Patrick has proposed a 27-cent increase in the state gas tax, which would give Massachusetts the dubious distinction of having the highest such tax in the nation, at 50.5 cents per gallon. At the same time, there is talk about a 61-cent increase in the federal gas tax. Motorists are still recovering from the sticker-shock of gas selling for over $4 a gallon, and aren’t exactly thrilled with the prospect of paying more to fill up their tank, now that prices at the pump have fallen.

Meals tax: Patrick has revived his proposal to raise the sales tax on meals from 5 percent to 6 percent statewide — a 20 percent increase — to offset local aid cuts. He also wants to give communities the option of raising the tax another percentage point, with the additional money retained locally to help pay for municipal services. Most restaurants are seating fewer customers these days, and this increase could drive many of them out of business.

Hotel tax: Patrick is also eyeing a 20 percent increase in the room occupancy tax, with communities being given the option to increase it even further. While out-of-state visitors will be primarily affected, the increase will also affect local families vacationing on the Cape or in the Berkshires.

Lodging tax: There has been renewed talk of imposing a lodging tax on second-home owners who rent out vacation properties for brief periods during the year. However, it would be unfair to treat these homeowners as if they were running a year-round hotel or bed-and-breakfast.

Sugar tax: If the governor has his way, the sales tax exemption will soon be eliminated on all alcohol, candy and sweetened beverage purchases. The $121.5 million expected to be raised will be used to fund a new Commonwealth Wellness Fund for public health programs.

Bottle bill expansion: Adding a 5-cent deposit on noncarbonated drinks, including water, flavored water, coffee-based drinks, juices and sports drinks, is expected to generate $20 million annually. Rather than make people pay more, why not promote curbside recycling instead?

Registry fees: Get ready to pay more for the privilege of driving on Massachusetts roadways. Patrick is proposing to “update and consolidate” fees at the Registry of Motor Vehicles to raise another $74.5 million.

Nursing home tax: The governor’s fiscal 2010 budget includes a $75 million increase in the nursing home fees the state charges for non-Medicare patients. In effect, this penalizes those who can pay privately for their care and don’t have to rely on the government for assistance.

Cross-border collections: Many Massachusetts residents save money by shopping in New Hampshire, which does not have a sales tax. However, Massachusetts is now insisting that New Hampshire businesses collect a tax from their Bay State customers. Several newspaper editorials have noted how ironic it is that Massachusetts — which more than two centuries ago led the revolt against unfair taxation of the colonies by the British king — is now reaching beyond its borders to collect more taxes.

Expanded DOR powers: The Department of Revenue is attempting to reclassify independent contractors working in a variety of occupations as regular employees, which would have a detrimental effect on many employers. Since DOR was given expanded powers by the Legislature last year, it has been aggressively pursuing every conceivable plan to raise revenues.

Sales tax: Don’t be surprised if an increase in the sales tax is soon in the offing. After more than a year of closed-door discussions, the Governor’s Readiness Project Commission recently came out in support of such an increase to help fund the next phase of education reform. Despite being the centerpiece of Patrick’s legislative agenda, you may have missed the news, since the report was issued with little fanfare around the December holidays.

Is there anything left for Patrick to tax? The only thing noticeably missing from the preceding list is the property tax, which is the one area where he pledged to deliver relief to the residents of Massachusetts when he ran for governor in 2006. Three years later, taxpayers are not only still waiting for that relief, but are now bracing for a barrage of new taxes.