Governor Patrick wrote an Op-ed for the Washington Post last week taking on the continuous hostage-taking and fiscal lunacy of the current GOP. With this, his book, and his new PAC, he’s clearly trying to enter the national conversation — particularly on the values front. Good on him — the country needs his voice. Nutshell:
It is now clear that the Republican strategy is to drive America to the brink of fiscal ruin and then argue that the only way out is to cut spending for the powerless. Taxes — a dirty word thanks to Norquist’s “no new taxes” gimmick — are made to seem beyond the pale, even as the burden of paying for our society shifts disproportionately to the middle class and working poor. It is the height of fiscal folly. It is also not who we are as a country.
Strong words. They happen to be true. Keep it up, Governor — more.
joeltpatterson says
He starts out with someone arguing to Grover Norquist in 2003 that eventually a Dem will win the White House and…
This weekend I talked to a health-care wonk friend who attended a meeting led by Harry Reid’s and Max Baucus’ health-care staffers. Both those staffers told a group of people that the Dem Senators are not hearing enough from ordinary people about preserving Medicaid. So they are going to cut billions out of the program that delivers healthcare to the working poor and keeps lots of middle-class people in good nursing homes.
The real danger today not whether Congress will take a simple vote to enable it to pay its bills–it’s whether leading Democrats will keep the promise of Harry Truman & Lyndon Johnson & Tip O’Neill.
jconway says
Can’t agree more. Its like we have forgotten the old Clinton slogan “Its the economy stupid!” and what that means is not austerity but ensuring prosperity for working Americans. An agenda that does that will lead to more jobs, healthier workers, and eventually more disposable income and more innovation to get the country moving again and tax revenue from an improved economy will balance budgets, along with ending the wars. In 2006 and 2008 I helped campaign for the Democratic ticket in swing districts, and socially conservative voters told me time and time again they were voting for Democrats since they didn’t trust the GOP to look out for their pocket books.
Surrendering these issues to the GOP will not win us over budget extremists in the tea party, it does mean that there is no difference between us and the Republicans on populist policies that help workers. And then they will revert to voting on god, gays, and guns instead of with their wallets. If our economic program is the same as the Republicans or Republican lite we lose the white working class that used to be our base and we lose independents. We don’t need to be social democrats, we just need to be Democrats.
Peter Porcupine says
Spending cannot be changed without appropriation. From Congress. So what to cut?
I want to see spending cuts, I want to see the size and overall mission of government made smaller. But even Gov. Patrick’s first resort for cuts is ‘the powerless’.
Anyone who has ever attended a town meeting knows that the football team will be cut, the private streets won’t be plowed, etc. if the override doesn’t pass. Although when it DOES pass, the money is sucked away into adminsitration and regulation and the football team gets cut anyway.
The argument will be made that cuts in administration and regulation won’t generate enough money, that cutting things like WH and FLOTUS staff is only a pittance, and we need to look at the bigger, realistic picture. But discretionary spending on ‘the powerless’ is another pittance – so why talk about cutting that? Why even threaten that?
What you are misreading here is what Norquist means by not allowing a Democrat to govern as a Democrat. That doesn’t mean hurting the powerless – it means making government smaller, and ending the expansion of entitlements in favor of helping those who actually ARE powerless, instead of Social Security with no asset testing, and increasing dependency on government for everyday life.
Now THAT’s powerless.
SomervilleTom says
There is no indication that the GOP favors a smaller government. A party who wants a smaller government does not start two simultaneous wars. A party who wants a smaller government does not root its political appeal in attacks on immigrants, personal decisions about sexuality, and attempts to transform government into a Christian theocracy.
The claim that tax increases can be avoided is delusional. The plain truth is that the GOP has chosen to throw America under the bus in order to further their short-term political and economic interests.
nopolitician says
Can you tell us why you favor “smaller government”? Surely it is for more than just the sake of having a smaller government. What changes do you want to see that result from this “smaller government”?
I think the devil is probably in the details, and that “smaller government” is a pleasant-sounding euphemism for “cut services for the poor” (instead of “poor” they call them “the lazy”, “the welfare cheats”, or the more racist substitute in “the blacks”) and stop regulating businesses (they call this “be more friendly to businesses, since they create the jobs”). At least that is what I get when I dig into my friends motives who call for the same thing.
stomv says
If your town is playing those override games, then your town sucks. My town doesn’t do that — the local leaders clearly lay out what the override will fund, and if/when the override passes, the override funds what the leaders say it will fund. Not just for the coming year, but for all future years of operational budget.
I’d appreciate it if, in the future, you don’t paint my Town with your brush. 🙂
Jasiu says
Once you’ve read the Governor’s piece, check out David Brooks’ op-ed, The Mother of All No-Brainers, in the NY Times (Tuesday). Although from the differently-winged perspective, it dove-tails well.
But, of course, the Republican party is anything but normal these days.
Or put another way, by (I believe) Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) on Ed Schultz’s radio show today, “They won’t take Yes for an answer.”
I’m glad the governor is speaking up and I also appreciate David Brooks’ candor.
seascraper says
The Republicans can ride Obama’s proposed tax increases all the way to victory again in 2012. Why would they destroy their electoral strategy for the sake of spending cuts which will never actually materialize?
Jasiu says
The Republicans are more concerned about “electoral strategy” and they are afraid of upsetting the tea party crazies. Responsible governing? Not a concern for today’s GOP.
seascraper says
You win elections by getting more people to vote for you
stomv says
you win to play. If the GOP is focused on winning but not governing, then what in $deity ‘s name are they trying to accomplish? Is it all about the salaries, pensions, and perks they get as lawmakers?
seascraper says
What Democrats called governing a few years back was handing out goodies to poor voters and hoping there were enough to get re-elected. Ethnic big-city politics. So don’t go chirping about the Republicans handing out tax cuts to the dumb voters.
What you do with the money as government is the same as what you do with the money in a business or your personal life. If you invest the money in something the pays off down the road (REALLY pays off, not just some random thing that sounds nice and gets loud clapping) then you can go into debt for it.
The Democratic Party is 100% screwed up in its growth priorities, just throwing money out to the poor people as if that will pay for itself. The R’s are about 75% screwed up.
SomervilleTom says
What “goodies” did the Democrats “hand out” that compare to the ENORMOUS sums given the defense industry in the Iraq fiasco (most of it without even a pretense of oversight) or the huge sums given already-wealthy taxpayers in the Bush tax giveaways?
“What you do with the money as government” is most certainly not the same as “what you do with the money in a business or your personal life.” The government can create money. Neither you nor your business have that option. The government can and should run a deficit during recessions, in order to spur the economy, and can and should raise taxes during boom times when those taxes are affordable.
Running a deficit to increase unemployment benefits during a savage recession is far more effective at restoring the economy than, for example, cutting taxes. The recipients of those unemployment benefits spend them virtually instantaneously, thus putting money back into circulation. The already-wealthy recipients of tax cuts put them in the bank. We see that playing out as we speak.
On the planet where the rest of us live, the governance of the Republicans, starting with Ronald Reagan, has been abysmal in comparison with the Democrats, by virtually any measure of economic health. The principal reason that the economy has not improved as much as we want during the Obama administration is that the GOP has resolutely and successfully blocked and sabotaged virtually every meaningful effort to restore the economy. Destroying the Obama presidency has trumped good governance every time.
The apparent desire to drive the economy into the brick wall of the debt ceiling is only the latest of the continuous and escalating pattern of suicidal GOP political self-interest.
seascraper says
The logic of what you want to do is the same whether you spend the money on food stamps or bullets or give a chance for somebody to invest the money in Apple Computer.
I think you would tell me the difference between putting the deficit spending into bullets or food stamps. You should be able to do the same between food stamps and Apple Computer.
I never said the government shouldn’t help out people during a recession. However it doesn’t fix anything. If deficit spending was so great the government should be doing it all the time, should deficit spend $17trillion every year because apparently “it pays for itself”.
SomervilleTom says
The Bush administration didn’t buy “bullets”. Instead, they funneled billions of dollars of no-bid contracts to GOP instruments like Bechtel and Halliburton. Let’s not forget that Halliburton was Vice President Cheney’s family business before he acquired the U.S. government.
Your implied conflation of corrupt and reckless “defense” players like Bechtel with extended unemployment benefits to workers being savaged by the relentless greed of the very wealthiest of the wealthy demonstrates your disconnect from the real world.
seascraper says
The Democrats want the Republicans to agree to tax increases to take away that issue from the Republicans in 2012. So don’t pretend it’s not about winning either way.
JHM says
There is not a single word in the Comrade Governor’s scribble about HOW Party Neocomrade G. G. Norquist “hypnotized the GOP,” only the bare allegation that some such superhuman [*] event has come to pass:
(( And there was silly me, hoping to learn exactly what to dangle before the jowls of Republicans in order to make them do as I instruct ’em to! ))
Happy days.
___
[*] You can always tell a H*rv*rd — just look for “The Brain and able spokesman.”
michaelbate says
Where were these Tea Party people when George Bush was trashing the Constitution with warrantless wiretapping; detention without charges and trial; intervening in states’ decisions to allow medical marijuana and doctor-assisted suicide (I thought they were for states’ rights!); and countless other abuses? How many Republicans voted against the Patriot Act?
Give me a break!
Peter Porcupine says
How do you respond to the fact that the Obama Adminsitration has continued ALL of these policies?
How is that George Bush’s fault, exactly?
michaelbate says
I have criticized him every time he has continued one of these Bush policies.
Bush is to blame for initiating a number of un-American policies such as those I enumerated. Obama has not continued ALL his policies.
Republicans and cowardly Democrats are to blame for the disgraceful fact that Guantanamo is still open, and for the equally disgraceful fact that some alleged terrorists will be tried in military tribunals.
Since you claim to want “smaller government” do you support repeal of these Big Brother policies?
merrimackguy says
The Republican’s 2001-2007 abandoned all of their principles, and by 2009 people who believed in smaller government revolted. Obama probably put them over the edge, but Bush started the fire.