Some endorsements we fret, hem and haw over. This one's easy, a 360-degree no-look reverse slam dunk. Jim Marzilli for State Senate in the 4th Middlesex district, every day and twice on Sundays.
Our good friend (and well-known progressive commentator!) Ernie correctly boils down the race to Marzilli vs. Burlington State Rep. Charley Murphy. Murphy seems like a decent sort: An ex-Marine, he stresses health care, education, property tax relief and bringing home local-aid bacon as his priorities. He's progressive on a number of core issues. He has a sense of humor, and is gracious. Not bad, as far as it goes. (And hey, he posts on BMG. See here for a mostly-respectful discussion of the relative merits of Murphy vs. Marzilli. See Striker57's comment in particular for a personal impression of Mr. Murphy — favorable.)
That being said, Jim Marzilli has been in the forefront of any number of the most important issues in Massachusetts.
- In 2005, he helped out with the ballot initiative that pressured the legislature to be bold with health care reform. That helped ignite a national conversation about health care reform. In the House, he's the lead sponsor of an ambitious and necessary health care cost-control bill. So much depends on controlling health care costs: The survival of our new health care law; municipal finance and property taxes; long-term and nursing care; … and oh yeah, people's health. It's a vast, complicated issue, and Marzilli is leading.
- How's this for anti-hack credentials? Marzilli was out front in abolishing redundant Middlesex Country government.
- In that vein: Marzilli courageously opposes the absurd and wasteful police details on road construction sites. (Murphy does not.)
- Marzilli has won minimum wage increases, and continues to push to index it to inflation.
- He's a bona-fide leader on the environment, both in our legislature — and indeed, internationally.
- He shows principle and independence: He fought Tom Finneran back in the day; and now he opposes Gov. Patrick's casino legislation. Regardless of how you feel about either of those pols, you have to admit Marzilli's not one to be led around by the nose.
To sum up: Jim Marzilli understands that it's not enough merely to ask government to do more; we must make government effective at the tasks it undertakes. He offers a smart and rare combination of principle and practicality.
Vote for this guy, will ya?
(As for the others: Patrick Natale is clearly too conservative for us; and we're afraid that Ken Donnelly is too yoked to protecting the prerogatives of firefighters' unions, which puts him at odds with some of the most important parts of Gov. Patrick's municipal agenda.)
striker57 says
With all respect to the Editors -I will be working hard for Ken Donnelly next Tuesday because he is a progressive, pro-worker candidate that comes from the rank-and-file. The real grassroots.
<
p>
A couple points in rebuttal to your very well written re-endorsement of Re. Marzilli, where it mentions Ken Donnelly.
<
p>
Ken is a Fire Fighter, was for 35 years and will carry that with him to the State Senate. Just as Senator Steve Tolman carries his union affiliation, just as Representative Martin Walsh carries his union affiliation as a member of the Massachusetts House.
<
p>
Both of these elected officials won seats with strong support (read that as fundraising and field) from their union and the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. Their progressive politics and their ability to represent the entire citizenship of the District and not just their “Union” is well documented.
<
p>
You site as a positive Rep. Marzilli’s independence from some of Governor Patrick’s agenda while calling it a negative should Ken Donnelly show opposition to the Governor on issues.(and yes I know it is on issues which you agree with the candidate’s position over the Gov and otherwise – but if independence is a plus Donnelly has as much as Rep. Marzilli in that column)
<
p>
Much like the election for Senator Barrios’s seat in September, we disagree over the best progressive in the race. A great position to be in.
david says
of the by now well-documented “BMG kiss of death” phenomenon, we fully expect Rep. Marzilli to repudiate this endorsement! đŸ˜‰
they says
they didn’t even have to hire a homophobic gospel singer to avoid your support.
mike-from-norwell says
“How’s this for anti-hack credentials? Marzilli was out front in abolishing redundant Middlesex Country government.”
<
p>
Coming from another part of the country originally, one could posit that many of the problems facing our state financially is the fact that the county system hasn’t worked in MA. Maybe the actual problem isn’t the redundant county government, but rather the redundant local government.
<
p>
Food for thought…
david says
there is no doubt whatsoever that, at the time Marzilli was involved, county government in MA was a catastrophic hackfest that was in desperate need of being put out of its misery. As I recall, the creditors of a Middlesex county-owned hospital were so sick of getting stiffed that they were on the verge of invoking an ancient law that somehow permitted them to seize privately-owned property to satisfy their debts. That’s what finally got the state to swing into action. Marzilli was a real leader on that.
mike-from-norwell says
The whole “bag o’ cash” mentality to local government is alive and well at all levels, not just county. May be the reason that all of you well meaning progressives eventually succumb to migraines from bashing your head against the wall over and over too many times.
<
p>
In other parts of the country, counties provide police/fire, schools, etc., but not around here.
gittle says
County governments outside New England generally have to provide these services because a significant portion of the population in the counties resides outside of the jurisdiction of the municipalities in the area. These residents generally flock to new developments on previously undeveloped or underdeveloped land. Therefore, because the county is the only functioning level of government in these areas, the county naturally has to provide services.
<
p>
In most of New England, including all of Southern New England (MA, CT, RI), all land, including uninhabited land, is incorporated within a city or a town, most of the uninhabited land is green space of some kind, and the vast majority of the other lands are already in use, so there really is not a possibility of any new developments springing up outside of existing communities. The only real new developments are occurring within existing cities and towns; when they overlap, they seek to form new municipalities out of the existing ones (Devens, for example).
<
p>
Bottom line: county governments do not provide the same services here as they do elsewhere because there is no need for it, with a 100 per cent incorporation rate (except in Northern New England). Since the municipalities offer these services, there is no point in having county governments offer the same services.
david says
I’d add, however, that there are some services that may be more efficiently provided on a regional basis, especially in the areas of the state where towns are small and relatively sparsely populated. That’s why, for example, the Franklin regional council of governments set itself up after actual county government was eliminated – to try to continue doing some of what county government can do well, without the unfortunate overlay of rampant hackery and waste.
peter-porcupine says
We’ve been fending off the state for years, because we actually operate in the black! We have an elected Assembly of Delegates to deal with regional issues as well.
<
p>
And in Maine, where vast areas are Fire District #37, county government is the most important. In fact, a year or so ago, the town of Alna tried to UN-incorporate, and pay only the county levy and eliminate local taxes althogether.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
But very fair and even handed endorsement. Good job for a bunch of lefty wingnuts. đŸ™‚
lynpb says
david says
If you mean the endorsement specifically, yes, I’ll add a link.
lynpb says
laurel says
Jim was one of the few (5?) legislators who initially would speak openly in favor of protecting the right to marry for same-sex couples. Here is his response to my Jan, 2004 email on the subject.
And while it didn’t end up being exactly a piece o cake ;), the point is that Jim was there at a crucial time. And a time before anyone knew it was politically safe to be there. He referred to a prior phone conversation in that email above. That was also memorable because he did not hesitate to state that marriage equality was “a no-brainer”.
<
p>
Jim has done the right thing when it wasn’t clear that that was the politically safe thing to do. If that isn’t good character and good judgment, I don’t know what is! Jim Marzilli will be a stellar senator.
bean-in-the-burbs says
jasiu says
Do you have something to back up this statement? Seems to me that with a probably low turnout, everything hinges on how many supporters have been ID’d and how effective each campaign is at getting those people to show up at the polls. I doubt that the campaigns are sharing their ID numbers freely.