I am writing to provide important context that is missing from a recent Taunton Daily Gazette Our View, titled, “Getting the T back on Track,” which deals with the Taxpayer Protection Act, sometimes referred to as the “Pacheco Law.”

The editorial highlights aspects of Gov. Charlie Baker’s proposal to reform the MBTA system, and claims the “Pacheco Law” — which is the Governor’s scapegoat for transportation failures last winter — “makes it difficult for the T to contract work to private companies.”

Since 1993, the Taxpayer Protection Act has served as a measurement tool for contracting out state services. The law does not “make it difficult” for any agency to contract out work to private companies; in reality, 80 percent of proposals that undergo the “Pacheco Law” process are privatized. The law merely requires an open cost analysis of public and private bids to guarantee taxpayer savings of at least a penny in order for state services to be contracted out.

Clearly, this debate is more about ideological disparity than evidence-based decision making.

Despite the spin of opponents, the Taxpayer Protection Act takes no side in the debate over whether public or private management is best for taxpayers. The state auditor oversees the process to determine private managers truly can provide less costly, equal quality services when compared to in-house work. State Auditor Suzanne Bump said this about the law: “The Pacheco Law forces government agencies, unaccustomed to thinking like businesses, to explore alternatives to their current model and base decisions on costs, desired outcomes, competitive bidding, and value.”

The editorial lacks crucial background that would help readers understand how the Baker administration has used the Taxpayer Protection Act as a red herring in their response to the transportation-crippling snow storms of last winter.

Baker, former executive director of the David Koch-funded Pioneer Institute, has opposed the law since his days privatizing health and human services for the Weld Administration. In 1993, a Globe Spotlight team series revealed the administration’s contracting practices at the time were so unscrupulous, House and Senate members overturned Governor William Weld’s veto of the “Pacheco Law” to first enact the law in Massachusetts.

Gov. Baker went on to run for office in 2010 on a “Baker’s Dozen” campaign that attacked the “Pacheco Law.” After winning the 2014 election, I was pleasantly surprised to see his transition team put out an early action plan with a proposal to “identify and pursue public-private projects that meet Pacheco standards for cost-savings.” Months later, the administration’s plan to repeal the law contradicts the savings identified when Gov. Baker took office.

The Pioneer Institute and similar, privately funded think tanks such as the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, have undertaken an aggressive attack campaign against the MBTA to get safeguards such as the “Pacheco Law” off the books. Their donors are largely unknown, or else it might be easier for readers to see why these groups have come out so strongly in favor of unfettered privatization.

Readers should be concerned the administration could support a plan to make the privatization of state contracts less transparent. They should be equally troubled by a media that echoes the call for less accountability. It is plain to see, however, why conservative think tanks urge the administration to reopen the floodgates to reckless privatization: it benefits their peers and donors.

Taxpayers deserve a transportation system that works; we all agree management issues are largely to blame for the MBTA’s failures last winter. As part of the budget process, the Senate supported Gov. Baker’s proposal for a fiscal management control board. But taxpayers also deserve a careful, transparent process when state contracts are put to bid. History has shown privatization does not guarantee taxpayer savings (take, for example, the Big Dig) and MBTA riders are not guaranteed benefits from outsourcing transportation service (take, for example, private commuter rail company Keolis).

As the saying goes, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” I fear those who advocate for more flexibility at the MBTA through a repeal of the “Pacheco Law” do not realize they will ultimately get less accountability in the end. If we take the “Pacheco Law” off the books, we run the risk of returning to the days of waste, fraud and abuse that corrupted the state contract process in the past.

The Taxpayer Protection Act ensures the privatization of existing MBTA service saves taxpayers money and benefits riders. Isn’t that the goal we were trying to accomplish in the first place?

State Sen. Marc Pacheco, D-Taunton, is president pro-tempore of the Massachusetts Senate.