As Karyn Polito told Left Ahead! today, voters will have a very clear choice among treasurer candidates. She's the fiscal conservative with a strict view of the role of the office, and not the activist-treasurer candidate.
Click the player on the jump to hear her describe how she'd handle the office. Note that she joins us at 15:25 into the show.
Having been a state represenative for a decade, she says she also brings related slants. For one, she thinks far too much goes on behind closed doors and it is “virtually impossible” for a legislator to get a straight up or down vote on a bill. She wants the treasurer's office to operate in the open.
She also said that despite her early call for debates for the office, she's constrained by the pending Dem convention. When they choose one or two candidates and find out whether they'll have a primary, she'll debate.
She did describe the political angle to the office. While she notes that she would come in as an independent treasurer, the office has become a “political catchall.” That is with the lottery, alcohol control board and numerous other money-related functions, the treasurer has inherited a variety of seemingly mismatched duties and authority.
A symbolic way Polito intends to illustrate independence would be to refuse a pension. She hopes that sets the tone for newly elected officials. She believes civil servants should receive pensions but not so pure politicians. She wants to set an example.
For her primary role as overseer of the $44 billion in pension funds, she would like to use those as models for efficiency as well. She thinks the many millions we pay annually in management fees are likely unnecessary. She favors passive index funds to simultaneously get good returns in safe investments with no fees.
Discuss
6 Comments . Comments are closed.You earn what you get paid
Boooooooo. What better way to ensure that our leaders don't understand our problems than to restrict leadership to those who are financially independent? What better way to entice corruption than to not pay our politicians the wage their skills would command in private practice?
I'm not arguing that the Treasurer should be pulling in a half mil a year, but I am arguing that our politicians are civil servants, and must be compensated appropriately if we are to have any hope of attracting a wide pool of qualified candidates.
No mandate either
I also thought that she, coming from the General Court, might be thinking of making no-pensions-for-elected-officials a policy or law. We asked and she said instead that she just hoped she'd set the tone and inspired newly elected officials to follow her.
It's still a lousy tone
And puts current and future other politicians in the awkward position of having to justify getting paid for their work.
I want a treasurer who believes in fair transactions. That doesn't mean you put the squeeze on everyone you interact with (including your own pension!). That means you do business fairly. Someone does the work, that person gets the paycheck and benefits.
Not to mention
that a no-salary policy would mean that only multi-millionaires like Charlie Baker could realistically hold a full-time political office.
$44 Billion in index funds?
Index funds are great for small investors. It keeps your cost down if you have a retirement fund, but $44 Billion in index funds? Someone should remind Ms. Polito that while the Mass Pension Fund did bad last fiscal year, it wasn't nearly as bad as the S&P index. While Mass lost 23.6% the S&P lost 26%. Roughly a billion dollars worse. have no idea if the Mass Pension Fund managers are doing a good job, but simply abrogating your fiduciary responsibility to an index would be irresponsible at best.
Eliminate the position
as a constitutionally elected one, and make it an appointive position named by the governor. It isn't a leadership position, but one which should be skill centered, based on experience.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 16 May 11:06 PM