IT’S SUNDAY, JANUARY 26TH. STATE SENATOR BRUCE TARR IS OUR GUEST. LET’S GO ON THE RECORD. THE SENATE MINORITY LEADER PUSHING BACK ON THE DEMOCRATIC SUPERMAJORITY ON BEACON HILL. HIS PRIORITIES AS THE GOP LOOKS TO GAIN GROUND. TIME TO GO ON THE RECORD FROM WCVB CHANNEL 5 THE INSIDE WORD FROM WASHINGTON TO BEACON HILL. TODAY’S NEWSMAKERS ARE GOING ON THE RECORD. AND WELCOME TO OTR, EVERYBODY. HI THERE. I’M BEN SIMMONEAU ED HARDING OFF ON THIS SUNDAY AND I’M SHARMAN SACCHETTI AND WITH US AT THE TABLE IS SENATOR BRUCE TARR. HE IS THE SENATE MINORITY LEADER, REPRESENTS THE FIRST ESSEX AND MIDDLESEX DISTRICT, A REPUBLICAN, A NATIVE OF GLOUCESTER, FIRST ELECTED TO THE SENATE IN 1994 AFTER SERVING TWO TERMS IN THE HOUSE. HE HOLDS DEGREES IN BUSINESS AND LAW FROM SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY. THANKS SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. THANKS. GOOD MORNING. GREAT TO SEE YOU BOTH. GOOD TO SEE YOU. ALL RIGHT. YOU’RE ONE OF FIVE REPUBLICANS IN THE 40 MEMBER STATE SENATE. MASS GOP CALLS GOVERNOR MAURA HEALEY’S BUDGET, WHICH WAS UNVEILED IN THE LAST WEEK, $62 BILLION. BY THE WAY, A PROPOSAL, A RECIPE FOR FISCAL INSTABILITY AND HIGHER TAXES. SO WHAT WOULD YOU CUT OUT OF IT? WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE’S A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BUDGET BEN, AND SOME OF IT HAS TO DO WITH PRIORITIES. BUT I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT IS IF YOU LOOK AT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, OUR STATE REVENUES ARE STAGNATING IN MANY WAYS. AND YET THIS BUDGET INCREASES SPENDING BY ABOUT 7.4%. THERE’S A CONCERN THERE. WHAT WOULD I CUT OUT OF IT? YOU KNOW, WE’VE HAD A LOT OF NEW PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. AND THE PROBLEM WITH NEW PROGRAMS IS THEY ALWAYS LOOK GOOD UNTIL YOU CAN’T AFFORD THEM. AND PEOPLE HAVE COME TO DEPEND ON THEM. SO I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A LONG, HARD LOOK AT WHERE WE’RE AT. WE NEED TO GET BACK TO OUR PRIORITIES, LIKE WHAT? NEW PROGRAMS? WELL, SO, FOR INSTANCE, WE’VE HAD A LOT OF STUFF WITH FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, WHICH EVERYONE AGREES IS A GREAT THING. THE QUESTION IS, CAN WE AFFORD IT AT THE MAGNITUDE THAT WE’RE GOING? THERE ARE A LOT OF NEW BOND BILLS, AND THAT’S IMPORTANT. ONE THING PEOPLE DON’T THINK ABOUT, WE HAVE THE SECOND HIGHEST BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PER CAPITA IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. OVER $11,000 PER PERSON. SO WHEN WE SEE A LOT OF THE FLASHY BOND BILLS THAT GET FILED FOR TRANSPORTATION OR NEW COLLEGE INFRASTRUCTURE, THOSE ARE GREAT AND THEY’RE IMPORTANT INVESTMENTS. BUT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE IN MODERATION BECAUSE THAT DEBT SERVICE COULD BECOME UNSUSTAINABLE. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT ARE DRIVING THE STATE BUDGET, YOU USUALLY HAVE THINGS LIKE PENSION COSTS. YOU LOOK AT DEBT SERVICE AND YOU LOOK AT SO-CALLED OPEB, OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. THOSE ARE THE PLACES THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON, AND WE NEED TO STICK TO THE BASICS BEFORE WE START THINKING ABOUT NEW THINGS. ALL RIGHT. LET’S TALK ABOUT TRANSPORTATION. THE GOVERNOR WANTS TO SHORE UP THE MBTA’S FINANCES WITH $1.3 BILLION IN FUNDING, WITH THE MILLIONAIRE’S TAX APPLYING MUCH OF THAT REVENUE. YOUR DISTRICT RELIES ON THE COMMUTER RAIL. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT PART OF THE PLAN? WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE DO NEED TO STABILIZE THE MBTA. WE NEED TO MAKE SOME INVESTMENTS IN IT. ONE OF THE THINGS BEN THAT’S CONCERNING, AGAIN, IS THE FACT THAT UNDER GOVERNOR BAKER, WE HAD BEEN WHITTLING DOWN THE AMOUNT OF TAXPAYER SUBSIDY FOR THE MBTA. NOW, THAT NUMBER IS GOING BACK UP. AT ITS LOW POINT, IT HAD REACHED SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 100 AND $200 MILLION A YEAR. THIS BUDGET CALLS FOR IT TO GO OVER $600 MILLION A YEAR. SO AGAIN, IT’S A QUESTION OF HOW MUCH CAN WE AFFORD TO RESPONSIBLY PUT INTO THE SYSTEM. SO IS THAT TOO MUCH? ARE YOU SAYING 600 MILLION IS TOO MUCH? I’M SAYING I’M CONCERNED ABOUT IT. I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S TOO MUCH. WE’RE GOING TO NEED TO SEE THE FULL PLAN FOR WHERE THAT MONEY IS GOING TO GO, AND WE’RE GOING TO NEED TO SEE WHAT ARE THE COST SAVINGS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED, SO THAT WE DON’T HAVE TO HAVE THAT NUMBER CONTINUE TO ESCALATE, BECAUSE IF IT DOES, IT’S UNSUSTAINABLE. BUT I WILL SAY THIS, THERE’S NO DOUBT ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO STABILIZE THE MBTA. WE NEED TO MAKE INVESTMENTS IN IT. THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS RELATIVE TO INCREASING THE SPEED OF THE TRAINS, IS THEY’RE REALLY IMPORTANT. AND SO I WANT TO ASK YOU QUICKLY ON THAT. THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF LOOKING BACKWARD CRITICISM TO THE BAKER ADMINISTRATION OR FELLOW REPUBLICAN FOR MISMANAGEMENT OF THE T. IS IT BETTER RUN TODAY THAN IT WAS THEN? WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT’S HARD TO SAY. I WILL SAY WHEN THE BAKER ADMINISTRATION TOOK CONTROL OF THE MBTA, IT DIDN’T TRY TO IGNORE THE ISSUE. IT DIDN’T TRY TO POSTPONE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE. WE PUT INTO PLACE A FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL BOARD, AND WE DID GET STABILIZATION. AND A LOT OF REFORMS WENT INTO PLACE. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS OF THAT EFFORT. IT WAS NOT JUST SPENDING MONEY, IT WAS ABOUT REFORMING THE SYSTEM WITH AN EYE TOWARD SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCY. I THINK THAT’S ONE OF THE WAYS WE NEED TO MEASURE THE CURRENT EFFORT AND TO SEE ARE THOSE SAME KIND OF INITIATIVES BEING MADE, BECAUSE IF THEY AREN’T, WE ARE GOING TO BE ON A NEVER ENDING PATH TO ONCE AGAIN INCREASING TAXPAYER SUBSIDY THAT WE CAN’T AFFORD BECAUSE IT WILL TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM OTHER PRIORITIES. LAWMAKERS ARE GETTING PAY RAISES THIS YEAR 11% IN SOME CASES. THAT’S A LOT OF MONEY. ARE YOU GOING TO ACCEPT IT? WELL, I AM, AND THOSE, AS YOU KNOW, ARE FORMULAIC. THEY WERE APPROVED YEARS AGO, NOT BY THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF. AND SO I WILL AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT I SERVE JUST AS EVERYONE ELSE DOES. AND I THINK THOSE LEVELS OF COMPENSATION ARE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PROGRAMED STIPENDS AS WELL, THAT LAWMAKERS ACCEPT AS WELL. AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, ONE COULD ARGUE THAT MAYBE THOSE ARE PLACES TO CUT. WELL, YOU KNOW, I’D CERTAINLY BE ENTERTAINING IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO MAKE A PROPOSAL ABOUT THAT, I WOULD BE RECEPTIVE TO IT. BUT WITH ALL THE THINGS WE NEED TO LOOK AT, I THINK THERE ARE MUCH MORE SERIOUS PROGRAMMATIC, FOUNDATIONAL THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. SHARMAN AS I MENTIONED, IF YOU LOOK OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORTS BY THE MASS TAXPAYERS FOUNDATION, STATE REVENUES ARE FLATTENING, NOT THE MILLIONAIRE’S TAX. BUT REMEMBER, THE MILLIONAIRE’S TAX IS PAID BY A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF MASSACHUSETTS TAXPAYERS. SO THE MORE WE LOAD OUR SPENDING PRIORITIES ONTO THAT TAX, THE MORE WE ARE CREATING A VULNERABILITY BECAUSE THEY’RE HIGHLY MOBILE. SO LET’S TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE THAT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY. THE EMERGENCY SHELTER CRISIS. IT’S ANOTHER BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET ITEM. YOU HAVE BEEN OUTSPOKEN ON THIS TOPIC. THE GOVERNOR NOW WANTS ANOTHER $425 MILLION BY THE END OF THE MONTH TO KEEP THE PROGRAM SOLVENT. SHE’S ALSO SEEKING TO STRENGTHEN BACKGROUND CHECKS, REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO VERIFY THEIR IDENTITY, AND SHE’S ASKED THE LEGISLATURE TO CHANGE THE RIGHT TO SHELTER LAW TO INCLUDE A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. SOME OF THESE ARE THINGS THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN ARGUING FOR TWO YEARS NOW. IS IT TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE, AND IN SOME CASES, LONGER THAN THAT? BEN. AND THERE’S NO QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO REFORM THE SHELTER PROGRAM. AND BY THE WAY, THE NUMBERS THAT YOU MENTIONED, THE 325 MILLION, FOR INSTANCE, THAT ARE IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, RIGHT. BUT IN THE BUDGET, IT’S 325. THAT’S THE POINT. SHARMAN WE AREN’T EVEN IN THE NEW BUDGET, AND SHE’S ASKING FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION THAT EXCEEDS WHAT’S IN THE BUDGET ITSELF. AND THAT POINTS TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE IT’S BEING ENVISIONED THAT WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONTINUE TO SUPPLEMENT THIS SYSTEM. SO I WOULDN’T WANT ANYBODY TO BE UNDER THE ILLUSION THAT THAT $325 MILLION IS A FINITE NUMBER OR A MANAGEABLE NUMBER. BUT COULDN’T YOU ARGUE THAT WITH THE NEW ADMINISTRATION IN WASHINGTON, THE NUMBER OF MIGRANTS COMING IN IS GOING TO BE MUCH, MUCH LOWER? AND THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME PEOPLE CAN STAY. SO IT MIGHT NOT BE UNDER UNDER THE GOVERNOR. IT’S NOT OPEN ENDED BEN. BUT THE FACT IS IT’S STILL SOMETHING THAT’S OUT OF CONTROL AND IT’S STILL UNSUSTAINABLE. WE MAY HAVE DECREASES AND I HOPE WE DO. AND THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK THAT EVERYONE IN MASSACHUSETTS CAN AGREE ON IS WE NEED BETTER IMMIGRATION POLICY, WE NEED BETTER CONTROL AT THE BORDER, AND WE’RE STARTING TO SEE SOME INKLINGS OF THAT NOW, WHERE THAT POLICY GOES, I DON’T KNOW, BUT THE POINT IS THIS WE DO NEED TO REFORM THE SHELTER SYSTEM. WE HAVE SET IT FOR YEARS, NOT JUST TWO YEARS. MORE THAN THAT, GOVERNOR HEALEY’S LATEST PROPOSAL IS APPROPRIATE. IT INCLUDES SOME ACTUALLY SOME THINGS THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN PITCHING, LIKE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS. IT DOES, BUT THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT IS A BIT SOFT SHARMAN, BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO EVIDENCE YOUR INTENT TO STAY IN MASSACHUSETTS, EITHER BY A SELF-ATTESTATION OR BY BEING HERE FOR THREE MONTHS. WELL, THAT EITHER OR SITUATION IS ONE THAT’S WAY TOO OPEN ENDED, AND WE THINK IT SHOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, NOT ONE THAT CAN BE CIRCUMVENTED WITH AN ATTESTATION BECAUSE SOMEONE’S INTENT TO REMAIN CAN CLEARLY CHANGE. I DO WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE PERSPECTIVE FROM ADVOCATES WHO WORK WITH FAMILIES WHO FIND THEMSELVES HOMELESS, AND THEY ARE SAYING, YOU KNOW, IN SOME CASES, FOR INSTANCE, VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, MAYBE WHEN THEY’RE TRYING TO ACCESS THE EMERGENCY SHELTER SYSTEM, NOT RIGHT AWAY. DO THEY HAVE ALL THE ALL OF THEIR PAPERWORK TO PROVE THAT, IN FACT, THEY ARE WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE AND THEY ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS, AND SO IS THERE ANY WAY AROUND THAT? YES. AND IF YOU LOOK AT OUR PROPOSAL, IT’S IN IT. WE MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, VICTIMS OF NATURAL DISASTER, FOLKS THAT THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, FIND THEMSELVES IN A CRISIS SITUATION WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. WE THINK THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE PART OF WHATEVER WE DO, BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION. ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT FEDERAL DOLLARS FOR MASSACHUSETTS DRYING UP UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION? YOU KNOW, I AM. I DON’T KNOW WHERE WE’RE GOING TO GO WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION. I ALWAYS HOPE FOR THE BEST AND HOPE THAT WE’LL CONTINUE TO SEE FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND A LOT OF THE IMPORTANT PROGRAMS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROVIDES FOR. BUT I WOULD SAY THIS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I’M VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE INCREASE IN THE MEDICAID CASE RULE, THIS BUDGET THAT WAS JUST FILED BY THE GOVERNOR RESPONSIBLY PREDICTS AN INCREASE IN THAT CASELOAD. AND THAT PROGRAM DEPENDS HEAVILY ON FEDERAL SUBSIDY. AND SO RIGHT NOW, THE BUDGET THAT THE GOVERNOR FILED PRESUMES ABOUT A $700 MILLION INCREASE IN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE. IF WE DON’T SEE THOSE KINDS OF MEDICAID CUTS ON THE TABLE, ACTUALLY, THAT’S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AND SO IF WE DON’T SEE THAT KIND OF SUBSIDY, THAT KIND OF ASSISTANCE, IT COULD HAVE A SERIOUS IMPACT ON THE STATE BUDGET. AGAIN, REMEMBER, THE DRIVERS OF THE BUDGET, HEALTH CARE, PENSION COSTS, OPEB AND DEBT SERVICE. IF WE DON’T GET ASSISTANCE WITH THE HEALTH CARE COMPONENT OF THAT. AND BY THE WAY, MEDICAID IS 36% OF THE STATE BUDGET. JUST THE PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN THE SUBSIDY THAT WE GET, THE ASSISTANCE THAT WE GET COULD HAVE DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES. I WANT TO ASK YOU QUICKLY BEFORE WE GO TO BREAK ABOUT THE AUDIT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE. IT PASSED WITH 72%. QUESTION. ONE OF PEOPLE VOTING IN FAVOR THAT THE AUDITOR BE ALLOWED TO AUDIT THE LEGISLATURE. DO YOU THINK THAT THE SENATE AND HOUSE LEADERS SHOULD COOPERATE WITH THE AUDITOR? WELL, I THINK THERE’S A BIGGER QUESTION. AND THE BIGGER QUESTION IS HOW DO WE ACHIEVE TRANSPARENCY IN THE LEGISLATURE? AND I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE SENATE, IN A BIPARTISAN WAY, HAS BEEN FIGHTING FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY OVER THE YEARS. WE’VE WORKED TOGETHER TO PUT, YEAH, THIS IS THE LAW. THEY’RE SHARMAN, BUT THIS IS THE I’M GOING TO GET THERE. RIGHT. IF WE FOCUS ON ONE PIECE OF IT, WE WON’T GET THERE. THE FACT IS, AND PEOPLE THAT ARE WATCHING US RIGHT NOW SHOULD KNOW THIS IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS IN THE MASSACHUSETTS SENATE AND THE MASSACHUSETTS HOUSE, WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT RULES THAT ARE GOING TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AND ALLOW FOLKS TO KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON IN THEIR STATE GOVERNMENT. I’M GOING TO GET THERE. OKAY. SO WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO FOLLOW WITH THOSE THINGS. SENATE PRESIDENT SPILKA HAS OPENED THE DOOR. SHE’S WILLING TO WORK TOWARD MORE TRANSPARENCY. SHE HAS IN THE PAST, AND WE’RE GOING TO WORK TOGETHER TO GET THAT. NOW, I’LL GET TO THE QUESTION YOU WANT TO ASK WHEN IT COMES TO THE AUDIT. IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT THE VOTERS HAVE GIVEN US A MANDATE. WE CAN’T IGNORE IT. WE CAN’T SIDESTEP IT, AND WE SHOULDN’T. NOW, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY AND SOME OF THE CONTOURS OF THE LAW AS IT’S BEEN PRESENTED TO US BY THE VOTERS. THE SENATE PRESIDENT HAS SET UP A COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT THAT, TO IDENTIFY THOSE CONCERNS. AND I BELIEVE IF FOLKS HAVE THOSE CONCERNS, THEY NEED TO BE PACKAGED. THEY NEED TO BE SENT. IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IT’S RESPECTFULLY IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THIS WAS A LAW THAT PASSED WITH 72%, AS BEN MENTIONED, YOU DON’T GET SUPPORT. YOU DON’T GET THAT VERY OFTEN ON ANYTHING THESE DAYS. WHY NOT JUST COMPLY? BECAUSE WE HAVE AN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I’M NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN’T COMPLY. I AM SAYING THAT IF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS, HERE’S THE WAY WE NEED TO DEAL WITH IT. THEY NEED TO BE SENT TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT. THEY NEED TO BE ANSWERED SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON WITH COMPLIANCE. AND THE COURT MAY TELL US THAT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THIS ARE BEYOND COMPLIANCE. WE NEED TO ANSWER THAT. AND BY THE WAY, THERE’S NOT A LOT OF TIME TO DO IT. THIS IS WHAT’S AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE. QUICK YES OR NO? SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE BE SUBJECT TO THE OPEN RECORDS LAW? I BELIEVE IT SHOULD IN MANY WAYS.