My take:
1. Unemployment. Our rate has occasionally exceeded the national rate.
2. Transportation. The T price goes up, the service declines. Plus I hear there’s some expansion afoot, which I’m all for.
3. Deval’s mixed legacy, most notably his legacy of absenteeism. Will the candidates pledge to be full-time governors? Deval’s legacy right now is:
a. Bold leadership on gay rights.
b. Reasonably sound, reasonably scandal-free management of the state.
c. A few gaping problems he has mysteriously never been held to account for.
d. Casinos.
4. Casinos.
5. Education. No shut up, not education! Unless you really plan to do something, just shut up please.
I may add more later, but that’s what I got for now. Any thoughts? I’m happy to open this thread if that is the will of the hive mind.
Christopher says
He did a bit of a book tour at one point and he’s done some surrogating for other candidates, but he has been worlds more present both physically and in terms of engagement than his predecessor.
Also, can you elaborate on what you don’t think he’s been held to account?
Finally, not sure of your point on education. It’s pretty much always an issue. I know I posted on Avellone’s ideas awhile back.
JimC says
I telecommute at times, so I’m not against telecommuting per se, but the Governor works with legislators who are required to commute to the Hill. As a gesture of good faith if nothing else, he should not telecommute.
There’s also the book tour, and neglect of the aforementioned glaring issues.
Re: education, want to get my attention with a bold plan? Commit to raising teacher pay. Commit to shrinking class size. Commit to making every public school as good as Boston Latin. And by commit I mean commit — if you don’t show progress at the end of the first term, don’t run again.
Or, take my first bit of advice and just shut up and admit you have no idea how to fix education.
Christopher says
Your ed goals are laudable, but I’m afraid will run headlong in to the brick wall called Reality. Higher pay and smaller classes are generally the result of decisions made at the local level. Also, isn’t Boston Latin an exam school? That right there is going to make it better by default. Your goals will require a lot more money in state aid or a statewide revenue stream for schools, both of which require legislative cooperation. Your don’t run again standard assumes that this is entirely within the Governor’s control.
JimC says
I don’t want the same old talk about education. If candidates don’t have bold ideas that they’re REALLY going to enact, then I don’t want to hear it.
I mean, I don’t like it when Arne Duncan closes a school, but at least it’s decisive, and says they’re serious about their version of reform.
ryepower12 says
Or are always working, 24/7, like the Governor?
I think you have a view of Beacon Hill that is very different from reality.
If the governor holed himself up in the Corner Office every day, that would be an example of him not doing his job. Going out around the state and meeting with citizens across the Commonwealth is very much a part of his job.
Even going around the country helping out other pols or doing speeches, as he’s done a little in the past couple years, is ‘doing his job,’ as it’s advertising Massachusetts to talented people or businesses and it’s helping out people who he can ring up and ask to help Massachusetts in some sort of appropriation bill or another.
You say he’ll be remembered for his competency and managerial abilities, but then knock him for absenteeism. Well, what is it? How many good managers are absentee managers? It just doesn’t happen. Some may be better at delegating than others and not having to be around all the time, but none suffer from absenteeism.
Massachusetts has had its first full time Governor these past 8 years since Weld’s first term in office.
Deval Patrick’s not perfect, but these accusations are unfair and unfounded.
JimC says
These are my opinions. I’m not accusing him of anything, or asking him to be chained to his office.
There have been times when it felt like he was phoning it in. In m opinion, he we will be remembered for squandered potential more than for what he achieved.
ryepower12 says
what happens when a Democratic Governor is elected to office with a Democratic legislature that isn’t much enamored with working with hm.
In other states, where things are even a little more competitive, you would have seen legislators jumping to wrap themselves around a popular Governor with the same party ID, because that would be seen as key to getting elected.
Here, doing so is likely to get you a quick trip to a basement office in the bullpen.
So I don’t see the wasted opportunities as Deval Patrick’s wasted opportunities. Just wasted opportunities. He had great ideas left and right –a more progressive system of taxation, free community college education that would have cost the state almost nothing, more revenue for cities and towns through local option taxes, etc. — but was rebuffed on most of them along the way.
The ones that got through tended to only get through out of necessity, and even then only severely watered down, since the legislature decided to at least do math.
But let’s not pretend there weren’t great victories along the way. Marriage equality may not be seen as a big deal, since so many states have rushed to follow us, but that was not obvious in 2006. He has done more for marriage equality than perhaps any other person in the US.
Then there was the bond bill refinance that I bet almost no one remembers now, but happened to put a lot of shovels on the ground when those shovels were badly needed in an economic downturn.
My favorite thing, though? Cutting all the corporate tax loopholes. There’s lots more to go on that front, but there was no reason why telephone companies should have been able to get away without paying property taxes, etc. That many adds up and a lot of it benefited cities and towns.
Will he go down as the bestest Governor ever? I’m no expert on MA Governors going down into history, but probably not.
What I can say though is he’s easily the past Governor we’ve had in the past 24 years, so he must be doing something right.
jconway says
Deval’s tenure suffered from high expectations and lofty promises, much like the guy in the White House he is often compared to, but I think he worked with what he had to get a lot done-more so than the President. Structurally getting DINOs and detritus oust and replaced with progressives will take time but he laid the groundwork. Sonia-Chang Diaz beat Wilkerson, Sciortino beat an old school theocon Somerville hack, and the State Senate under Murray was significantly more progressive than under Murray than under Trav. Would any of this next bench of progressives been elected prior to Deval? Possibly.
But his campaign was the nucleas through which we get ProgressiveMA, Elizabeth Warren, and great local leaders. He definitely laid a better foundation for the next Gov than Obama. He also avoided a lot of cuts during a very difficult time. Some bad calls-casinos, the zoo and drape fiascos, and the revenue bills failure (not sure if his arm twisting would really work). For an outsider Gov he has done a pretty good job. His leadership during the marathon crisis was exceptional as well-especially when we compare it to another certain Northeastern Governor…
Christopher says
“detritus oust” from the fourth line above? I suspect a major auto-correct or voice recognition failure.
jconway says
Getting the DINOs and detritus OUT of Beacon Hill. Though listed from Beacon Hill works for me as well.
jconway says
Ousted from Beacon Hill-not listed. I really wish we could edit
comments already-at least on a time delay.
Christopher says
Not a word I’m familiar with. On dictionary.com it’s defined as small particles or debris. Are you metaphorically refering to certain legislatures as debris?
Christopher says
legislatures=legislators
petr says
… meaning more like remnants of a larger effort. For instance, if I clean my office of all the detritus that has collected over the past year (since I cleaned it last) I will be removing things (detritus) that once had use, or the promise of use, but no longer have the same value. In that respect, I think JConways’ use of it is spot on.
It’s different from ‘debris’, which I think of as the result or product of some destruction or decay… and not at all like ‘waste’ which is more like separation of the good from the bad.
jconway says
Though the botanical definition works for me as well.
jconway says
I would re frame it as
1) Revenue
Coming up with a consistent and progressive way to fund all the investments we need and
2) Investments
We need better jobs and we get better jobs with better transit and education.
I think we can have honest policy discussions around those two big picture ideas and then fit the frameworks underneath it. But someone boldly running on a pro-revenue pro-investment platform would meet that criteria. So far I only see Berwick doing that. And opposition to casinos falls under revenue since it’s a decidedly regressive way to raise dubious returns.
I see Grossman pushing more quality of life ideas regarding family leave and the living wage-but he hasn’t tackled healthcare, education, transit, and was decidedly on the wrong side of the revenue debate. I do feel he is better capable at beating Baker at present and dealing with the leg.
Kayyem increasingly seems to be all hype and little substance. Her posts here have not changed that impression for me, and Coakley has yet to shown how she has learned from the last campaign and is repeating the same strategy that will win her the nod and lose her the general.
ryepower12 says
Deval Patrick has been an absentee governor?
Mitt Romney spent seemingly more time away from Massachusetts than he did in it during his last two years of office, without any great excuse being a whole four years away from the race he wanted to run in. That’s an absentee governor.
Deval Patrick’s made a few speeches and made a couple business trips. That is not absenteeism.
JimC says
n/t
ryepower12 says
Energy/Climate will get big, especially with the retiring coal power plants (and the other coal plants people want retired). Conversations could be had over how much we need to invest in conservation and upgrading the grid and whether that would be much cheaper and more effective than just building new plants or keeping plants like Brayton open.
Education is a real issue. No need to cross it out. How it will come across in the campaign may not be completely predictable — but it will come up. One way it could: the MCAS is changing to another test, so maybe that in particular will become an issue, or more likely, people will want to take another look at how much of a roll standardized testing should have in our educational system.
Health care should be an issue. One thing that could pop up is Vermont, which is pushing toward Single Payer. There will be a lot of Democratic Primary voters who will want that to be an issue in this campaign.
Wages, employee rights and labor. With ballot amendments on wages and sick time, these are going to be an issue in the campaign. One thing that could pop up: Is $10.50 enough? It would be interesting to see if one of the campaigns comes out for a higher minimum wage and makes that central to their campaign. There’s also Marty’s election to think about in Boston and how much that has revitalized the labor movement — will some issues arise out of that? What about some sort of bill that would enable unionizing Big Box stores feasible?
Transportation. Several of the Democratic candidates have already come out saying the legislative plan that was passed was woefully inadequate. There are tons of people from all around the state who want to see specific proposals move forward that could be addressed at a local level, too.
jconway says
I feel like Gabreilli and Reilly ran to the center in the primary leaving a gaping hole at the left for Deval to fill. Fortunately, this time around, candidates are tripping over themselves to seize the progressive mantle . This is welcome news-and I hope we can have a real policy oriented issues based campaign.
I was a lean Grossman but am now genuinely undecided between him and Berwick.
JimC says
It’s not that I don’t think education is a real issue; it’s that I don’t believe most elected officials really intend to address it. Mark Roosevelt did, and Tom Birmingham, but they’re gone.
jconway says
But Birmingham might’ve beaten Romney and was a true blue progressive who could still attract hard hats. A first rate policy mind too. I think real education reform can’t be written off but it is something the base will have to demand. Berwick sounds sensible enough on the other issues that he might have a good education policy coming up. Definitely not an issue that has been discussed enough.
Jasiu says
Now I’m singing, “If I were a Reich man…” in my head. Did that happen to anyone else?
Not much to add constructively to this thread (enjoying the read), other than not quite buying that Deval’s tenure will have much effect. None of the candidates are closely tied to him – would have been the case if Tim Murray were in – and I don’t see anyone running as either the “next Deval” or the “anti-Deval”.
jconway says
And accurate. I think Kayyem and Berwick have been more effusive with their praise while Grossman put some distance with EBT and the revenue bill. And Coakley is running as Her Ascendency with little acknowledgement for the current Governor. What’s the polling on his approval rating? Both in the general and among the base?
Trickle up says
Just what do you imagine a governor can do to ease unemployment? Hire everyone?
In a small state like hours, the macroeconomic effects of state government spending are small. (Or at any rate, the effects of that spending that is effectively on the margin.)
The tax-credit racket is largely bunkum.
So unlike the federal government, the Commonwealth has no stimulus switch it can turn on to suddenly juice the economy.
I get that there is a “feel your dimension” to this issue, but as a practical matter, what does it all mean?
In the long term, of course state government can make a tremendous difference in employment.
Governing well, building and maintaining infrastructure, helping cities and towns to have excellent schools, and making top-notch state colleges and universities affordable to everyone will, over time, keep Massachusetts a job-friendly state.
So do these things and the next governor or three can take credit for them.
Short term? Show me.
SomervilleTom says
“Just what do you imagine a governor can do to ease unemployment?”
Build a public rail transportation system that allows ANYBODY within a 60 mile radius of, say, Boston, Worcester, and Springfield to get to or from any destination in an hour or less. Make the cost of that transportation essentially zero for every resident whose income is, say, less than twice the poverty line.
When you allow workers to live further away from the city, you expand the job opportunities they can consider. You expand small business opportunities for the communities that get better transportation services. Fewer automobiles on our highways improves the work environment — and therefore the “business climate” — for everybody.
I suggest that such investments be paid for by dramatically expanding the wealth taxes (capital gains, gift/estate tax, etc) on those whose wealth exceed a non-home threshold of something around $10 M. There are enough of those people, whose wealth is enough more than that (well over an order of magnitude in many cases), that the arithmetic works.
A convenient and affordable public rail transportation system is one of the most effective ways to put wealth that is currently being hoarded back into the hands of consumers where it can generate prosperity — and jobs — for all of us.
jconway says
This WHO Study estimates that the TransMilenio system in Bogata created over 95,000 jobs. 40,000 directly and 55,000 indirectly as it made rural and suburban areas more rapidly accessible to the city and opened up business expansion along the new corridors. Not to mention construction jobs and jobs in the system itself.
Rapid transit to reconnect the Gateway cities with Boston would do much to make those areas more attractive as bedroom communities for those searching for urban living without high Boston and Boston adjacent housing prices. It would also enable those companies based out there to better interact with companies in the eastern part of the state and we could have incubators and innovators along rapid transit corridors and not just the Metrowest 495 belt.
ryepower12 says
would grow hundreds and hundreds of jobs alone. Some of them thousands.
Some people ask how we can afford to invest in public transportation. I look at Davis Square today and think of Assembly Square tomorrow and wonder how we could afford not to.
Trickle up says
Transportation is exactly the sort of long-term infrastructure project that, ultimately, makes or breaks Massachusetts as a place that employers want to do business.
But, Tom, how long does it take to build a public rail transportation system? (your term.) Hint: First step is for Congress to snap out of it’s tea-party fantasy. So, not real soon.
For a candidate to have any cred with me on the employment issue, he or she has got to address infrastructure and quality of life head on. And be at least a tenth as forthright as you about paying for it.
I call BS on any candidate who talks about “JOBS” without doing that. It’s just going through the motions.
Christopher says
I thought part of the beauty of the federal system is we don’t have to wait for Uncle Sam’s permission or funds (though obviously funds are nice) to make internal improvements. Surely we can get some projects shovel-ready relatively soon.
Trickle up says
and the Commonwealth does not mint money.
When was the last time we did a major expansions of rail without federal funding? It’s got to be at least the 60s, more likely the 40s.
That said, I agree there are smaller-scale things we can and should do short of that. (We are actually doing a lot of them.) But they are mostly on the margin, in terms of employment, a far cry from Tom’s prescription.
SomervilleTom says
Early in 2013, Speaker DeLeo (with the collusion of Senate President Murray) killed a courageous proposal offered by Governor Patrick that would have made a great start.
The massive problems we see with the current MBTA are the result of DECADES of shortsighted STATE funding decisions. The federal government didn’t pass proposition 2 1/2, the federal government didn’t rip out the Green Line tracks that used to serve Watertown and Jamaica Plain (both through largely working-class neighborhoods). The federal government didn’t acquire land to build a promised “rapid transit” system to working class neighborhoods and then deliver buses painted silver.
Yes, Massachusetts would benefit from federal transportation spending. I suggest that in the meantime, maintaining and operating convenient and affordable public transportation falls squarely in the middle of what effective state government should do.
What might happen if Progressive democrats filled BOTH the corner office and the house and senate leadership with ACTUAL DEMOCRATS — you know, men and women from Democratic wing of the Democratic Party — who live out a commitment to public transportation similar to that shown by former Governor Mike Dukakis?
ryepower12 says
Light rail is very price competitive with building roads, buying the buses to put on them, then paying for their operating expenses.
A quick google search had some interesting results, like this example where light rail was compared buses within the same city and light rail came out 15% cheaper.
Here’s an entire book by a conservative (!) who makes the case for light rail and public transit because of its low cost and economic growth prospects.
Mike and I had him on LeftAhead for an entire show. I think it was one of our better ones.
From another google search, here’s a good cost comparison of various light rail/trolley systems built around the country in fairly recent times.
As seen in that link, costs can be high or cheap, depending on how many ‘frills’ and extras you want, but a reasonable per-mile expense can be had that is cost competitive with buses + roads, but a helluva lot more convenient for people who live there and more likely to spawn jobs for the area.
Some of the projects from that link cost as little as a few million per mile.
Last I heard, Lowell was greatly expanding its trolley system to make it an actual, fully functional system that would connect much of Lowell’s downtown core and replace UMASS Lowell’s bus system. The cost was a little higher than some of the examples from my previous link, but seems very doable to me. The bottom line, though, is that with good planning, the right zoning, and sticking to the basics when building the line and buying the trains/trolleys, there’s no reason why light rail can’t be affordable pretty much anywhere.
jconway says
Is also a viable alternative and one we should be investigating more.
Big reason TransMilenio was so successful is that it utilized an existing network of private bus operators and folded them into a public system that extended far across metro Bogata.
petr says
… However, I’m compelled to point out that 1) light rail is ‘light’ for a reason and B) Somervilletom posits the following, upstream,
I do not think that light rail, for all it’s very real benefits you list, is the answer to the problem that SomervileTom proposes. Light rail is light because it is limited to city speed and designed for short-hop routes where the distance between stops is, relatively, small. Moreover, the platforms are designed to have more people standing than sitting, thus saving weight on seats. The green line, for example. is an excellent light rail system, which is 23 miles from end to end, but which riders rarely travel the full 23. I would venture to guess the average distance of the light rail travel is 3 to 4 miles, but thats just a guess. I don’t really know. But the whole system is designed for people to travel only a few stops so standing isn’t an issue. So speeds are limited.
Having travelled the Fitchburg line into Boston for about 10 years, I would not want to travel the 30 odd miles betwixt Leominster and North Station on a green line train. I think the commute would be acutely painful and it would be longer. ..
ryepower12 says
We should investigate things like DMU for cost savings on new, shorter lines, and keep the lines limited to linking cities together (and not feel the need to string them out to every suburb and exurb imaginable), where then people can take advantage of other public transportation options.
All of this stuff is affordable. Massachusetts as a whole is more densely populated (and probably wealthier per capita) than the vast majority of Europe and other areas where trains and light rail is much more common. We can take it one step at a time, but need to at least come up with a plan. We can do it, we just have to want it.
ryepower12 says
State government can definitely have a very real impact on the job rate and there are definitely stimulative things government and the governor can do. As Tom mentioned, public transportation and what types of infrastructure work the governor approves (and the governor has a great sway) can have a big impact. Then there’s the difference between using tax credits soundly, giving to projects that will actually create jobs with it, versus doling it out to political friends. I’m willing to bet Deval gave those kinds of tax credits a lot more scrutiny than Mitt Romney did — not to say all of Deval’s moves worked out.
One specific instance of Deval Patrick creating jobs in a down economy that I mentioned earlier in this thread was the transportation bond refinance that he did in his first administration. That was a creative way to more heavily invest in our infrastructure without costing the state very much money and added greatly to the federal stimulus funds that went our way. I think it was projects like these that helped Massachusetts be poised to get out of the recession quicker and better off than most — to the point where only now the rest of the country is starting to catch back up.
Cutting tax credits in his first term saved some dough, both for state and local, that kept more people in their jobs, while a string of maneuvers, smart budgeting and small tax hikes helped grow revenue at the state and local level to the same effect. Cities and towns still have a lot less in state aid than they should — and had pre-Romney era — but it’s important to note that while Romney was hit with a small recession and absolutely destroyed local aid, Deval was hit with the Great Recession and did everything he could to blunt hits to local aid. That no doubt saved a lot of jobs — but also kept our educational system in a position to keep growing jobs for decades to come.
So, yeah, there’s a lot of ways state government can — and did — grow jobs, but a lot of them, like our top notch educational system, goes unseen and largely unrecognized by the public because its ability to grow jobs is long term.
Trickle up says
but for the rest, see my reply to Tom above.
A plan to have a rail network in 20 years is not stimulative.
And yeah, our Gov handled a raw deal as best as anyone could. His instinct to protect the cities and towns as much as he was able was right on, and a logical sequel to how he ran on ’06. Massachusetts cannot be a job-friendly place if you neglect local communities.
Do any of the current crop get that? If I sound cranky, it’s because I’m starting to suspect that none of them do.