I’m warming to the Speaker. I will let our friends at Red Mass Group do a full SOTC thread, but I was cheered by this bit I heard on WBUR.
Speaker Robert DeLeo said the governor touched on most of the important topics but added, “The only other thing that I was thinking about was probably talking a little bit more about in terms of gun violence. In terms of what’s happening throughout the Commonwealth. Although we now have, I believe, one of the strongest gun violence pieces of legislation in the entire country — you know, where we go from there and what may be our next step.”
That got my attention. Another thing I noticed is a recent Herald item (you can find it) that said DeLeo thinks we should view MBTA fare hikes as a last resort, because for many people, the T is the only option.
I am listening. Obviously I still oppose casinos, and I can barely remember the whole dog track debate, but these two positions are worth noting. Maybe the Speaker is a better leader than many of us seem to think.
jconway says
I reached out to several state reps during the term limits debacle, all fine progressives, and to a person they said the same thing. DeLeo is the only thing preventing the House from being run by homophobes, he is the only one pushing forward on transgender rights, and he is keeping the conservative caucus of the Democrats at bay on social issues in exchange for holding their line on tax and spending.
Of the 12 Democrats who voted against removing term limits, there was a decent mix of progressives like Hecht and Provost and more moderate-conservative Democrats like Dwyer and D’Zoglio. So maybe they have a small point, but I just don’t buy it. And I would even argue that the tradeoff isn’t worth it in the long run.
He and DiMasi before him got a lot of credit from progressives for keeping social issues off the ballot, but I actually think drives like that have failed in more conservative states and would encourage more grassroots movements in favor of transgender equity if they made it to our ballot. Sure there is a risk that MA voted it down and conservatives said “even MA votes it down”, but there is also a reward of higher millennial turnout and a more engaged and more progressive electorate that can be educated about these issues.
Most importantly, it prevents hacks like DeLeo from debasing people’s civil rights by using them as worms dangling from a fishing rod to convince progressives to maintain a status quo that consistently defends regressive economic policies. That seems to far outweigh the risk in my opinion. The revenue starved T is entirely the fault of his no new taxes line, baker caved on the film credit and sucked up to him in last night’s speech, a credit that really just benefits DeLeo and some of his personal backers at the expense of the state. We can dole out money to GE (funny how the pricetag money wasn’t mentioned during that entire speech) but have to ‘tighten our belts’ on the back of the disabled, the indignant, the poor, the elderly, and cash strapped cities and towns struggling to keep up with higher costs. Is more, largely symbolic gun control a tradeoff for continued inaction on the pressing need for new revenue? Is lip service in favor of transgender rights worth read my lips no new taxes? Is open tolerance for corruption and patronage a trade off for let them eat cake sympathy for T riders? Gimme a break.
TheBestDefense says
Do you really think the problems at the T are, as you wrote “entirely the fault of his [DeLeo’s] no new taxes line?”
Have you considered the possibility that the problems at the T are the result of a half-century of mismanagement and inadequate support of mass transit by both parties? The massive run-up in failing equipment and the cost of repairing, replacing and buying new rolling stock is a problem decades in the making and would not have been fixed if the lege had enacted Deval’s tax package.
You might consider the possibility that the voters bear some responsibility for the tax vote on the 2014 ballot. You might also consider blaming my neighbors who are not in the MBTA service district and don’t want to pay more in taxes than the heavy load they already bear to support the T.
Of course these points require a nuanced understanding of the multitude of factors that each of the 200 members of the lege consider when casting their votes, along with the factors the electorate considers when voting on ballot questions, or for their own legislators for that matter.
scott12mass says
I’ve ridden the T maybe twice in twenty years but I just read how on the green line they’re starting to charge everyone who actually uses it. Guess the rear doors are now closed so you have to go through the front and actually pay. Seems “fare” to me. Slowly but surely the books will balance.
SomervilleTom says
This canard is as old as the Green line.
The MBTA replaced the fare collection system, at great expense, a decade ago. At that time, the MBTA had an opportunity to solve this problem. It squandered that opportunity.
Much of the Green Line is above ground and unenclosed. This means that during rush-hour, the platform is crowed with the people. On the B, C, and E lines that run in the median of busy streets, that crowd jammed between the side of the car and rush-hour traffic inches away in the travel lane.
When the rear doors are kept closed, it means that EVERY passenger has to move to the front of the car to exit, and every passenger in the crowd outside has to squeeze to the front of the car to board.
The result is that each station stop takes MUCH MUCH longer, significantly lengthening the total travel time.
The result of this policy, when enforced, is that many would-be Green Line commuters chose to drive instead. The result is to drive away Green Line commuters.
A better solution is to open all the doors during periods of peak travel.
Let me just ask a question about your use of the Mass Pike. During periods of peak travel, the Mass Pike has LONG had a policy of opening the toll gates to relieve the miles-long traffic jams that result from attempting to be “fare” in the way you propose.
Do you oppose or support this policy on the part of the MA Pike?
scott12mass says
I had used my ez pass maybe 20 times in two years. Recently because of a family problem (attending to a hospice situation) I drove from central mass to Jamaica Plain everyday for about a month. 128 south and north for a month. Sometimes at peak travel time. Never were the tolls “open”.
Commutes were horrific, but I never witnessed a time when the tolls weren’t operating. When was the last time you drove the Pike?
SomervilleTom says
When spoke of “peak travel times”, I meant at holidays like Thanksgiving and Easter. You’re correct that I very much avoid the MA Pike during those times. There has been discussion over the years of eliminating toll collections when the backups exceed certain thresholds, I thought this policy had been adopted.
In any case, my question remains. Do you think it is good policy to insist that every vehicle pay a toll on Thanksgiving or Easter, even though it results in a miles-long backup?
scott12mass says
.
SomervilleTom says
In answer to your specific question, the last time I drove the MA Pike was last Mother’s Day. We drive from Boston to the Stockbridge exit each year, and frequently return the same way (this year, we chose to drive the length of Rt 2 from the NY line, just to see the scenery).
SomervilleTom says
I fear you confuse the solution with blame.
It is certainly true that the problems with the MBTA predate Mr. DeLeo by a long way. All the factors you cite are real and important (although I quibble with some). These all focus on blame, rather than on what is needed moving forward.
The plain fact remains that a HUGE investment in public transportation is desperately needed, and demands new tax revenue. That revenue should come from our wealthiest residents — the rest of us are already paying too much.
I argue, therefore, that when Mr. DeLeo asserts that “no new taxes are needed”, he is lying. Indeed, the lege should indeed have a nuanced understanding of these factors when it comes to setting government policy — especially tax policy.
The lege must have a nuanced understanding of how regressive our current tax system is, particularly when it comes to providing state revenue for our 351 cities and towns. It must have a nuanced understanding of how much the 99% of Massachusetts residents need, and of how little — as a share of wealth or income — the wealthiest 1% of Massachusetts residents pay.
The lege should have a nuanced understanding just how regressive our current local tax system, as I wrote here earlier this month. The lege should remind themselves that property tax increases — the primary vehicle for funding cities and towns — are lowert for our wealthiest residents and highest for our least affluent.
Here are some data points from that thread:
(town | median household income | one-year change in $):
Dover | 187,829 | 412.10
Carlisle | 160,034 | 522.62
Concord | 134,705 | 642
Lincoln | 126,395 | 715.87
In today’s Massachusetts, our largest tax increases are falling on our least affluent residents.
In my view, no responsible legislator with a nuanced understanding of these matters could possibly vote to keep Mr. DeLeo in office given his long history of “leading” the lege in precisely the wrong direction on these matters.
While I agree with you that there is plenty of blame to go around for the current state of the T, I hope you’ll agree with me that Mr. DeLeo’s claim that no new taxes are needed is an outright lie.
Mr. DeLeo is the largest single obstacle towards restoring the quality of life in Massachusetts that we all seek. The best solution to that problem is replacing Mr. DeLeo.
I think that’s what jconway meant when he wrote the comment you responded to.
TheBestDefense says
You toss around the accusation of being a liar pretty easily. Have you considered the possibility that maybe he genuinely believes it is not needed now? I have never heard you accuse Repubs as liars for saying the same thing, because they clearly believe it. So maybe you could tone down your over-heated insults and aim for the nuance that I just referenced.
DeLeo is NOT the single biggest “obstacle to towards restoring the quality of life in Massachusetts” as you wrote. I would pin that first on Baker, but it seems you hold him in higher regard, despite the fact that he is more adamantly opposed to tax increases than DeLeo.
Jconway’s comment was clear and direct with no nuance. Your attempt to say he wrote something different is wrong on its face. He might back away from it as he has done before when he has made simplistic comments but not as long as you whitewash them.
And I saw your previous post about taxes but I have been both an intellectual and financial contributor to CTJ/ITEP and MassBudget (and before that TEAM) for decades. You are not in a good place to give me lessons on tax policy.
SomervilleTom says
Charlie Baker claims to be Republican and attempts to govern like a Republican. I don’t support it, I don’t like it, and I am not surprised by it. I don’t like it when dogs mark my garden — I see Mr. Baker’s governance in a similar light. He does what Republicans do.
Mr. DeLeo, in stark contrast, claims to be from my party. In my view, that makes a WORLD of difference. I expect Mr. DeLeo to behave like Democrat. He does not.
I’m sincerely eager to hear your proposed solutions to the tax issues I cite. Since you’ve been immersed in them for so long, you are surely aware of the issues and of the alternatives for addressing them. Do you disagree that our current property tax system is regressive? Do you disagree that our reliance on property taxes to fund local government is regressive?
I invite you to offer alternatives for how we might address these.
TheBestDefense says
The Democratic Party is not your party. It belongs to a floating mass of voters, not all of whom agree with you. That is one of the reasons that most Democratic legislators do not vote the way you or I would like. Maybe we are the ones who are out of step with the party.
I don’t need to offer a solution, as MassBudget has laid out the many parts of that spectrum. But since you have thrown down a challenge, how about you start by acknowledging your broad and offensive comments towards people who just don’t agree with you. It is hard to have a real discussion with you, who calls anyone who disagrees with a liar.
SomervilleTom says
The assertion on the table is “No new taxes are needed”. We’re all entitled to our opinion. We’re not entitled to our own facts.
It seems to me that there is reasonably strong evidence that the GOP makes this assertion and makes this assertion in full knowledge of the facts that make it false. That, to me, makes it accurate to characterize the GOP repetition of the assertion as a “lie”.
It also seems to me that Mr. DeLeo has access to the same facts, and makes the same assertion. I see no reason to characterize Mr. DeLeo’s assertion differently from those of the GOP.
Since my characterization applies to the statement itself, rather than whomever is making it, then it seems to me that you apparently dispute the characterization itself. Since the assertion has been made by both Charlie Baker and Bob DeLeo, then we can only conclude that you challenge the facts — you seem to be aware of facts that suggest that, in fact, a tax increase is NOT needed at this time.
You claim to have relevant facts, and you assert that you have been engaged in tax policy for some time, yet you seem reluctant to share your knowledge.
I have no issue with folks who disagree with me. I have very strong issues with folks who make up or distort “facts” while doing so.
I therefore, again, invite you to offer evidence that new taxes are NOT needed.
TheBestDefense says
I never, never wrote that new revenues are not needed so please do NOT attribute to me your inaccurate comprehension of what I wrote. I simply wrote that some people, including DeLeo, Baker and many of my neighbors who live in this part of the state that does not receive service from the T, do not think revenues are needed now. Many people believe in last year’s mantra “reform before revenue.” I think most of them are sincere but mistaken. I won’t call them a liar because I disagree with them. That just coarsens the debate and is the tactic of a bully.
My disagreement with them does not make them liars. It does prove you to be a bully who does not get the facts correct. Mind you, that does not make you a liar, just mistaken. A liar is someone who say things that they know to be factually wrong. I think you are just putting your ideology and partisanship over respect for people who disagree with you whether it be for ideological reasons or tactical reasons, and I think you sincerely believe they are liars.
For the record, as I have written here before, I do think new revenue is long past due. So again, I ask that you stop throwing accusations around that are not based in facts. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology.
SomervilleTom says
I’m glad that we agree that the FACTS say that new revenue is needed now. That isn’t opinion, it’s fact. I never suggested that you asserted anything to the contrary.
In my view, it is foolishness to express an opinion about where and when the sun will rise tomorrow morning, or about the value of the speed of light in a vacuum, or about any number of other factual and objective things. These things simply ARE.
In my view, a significant contributor to our current political dysfunction at both the local and the national level is this idea that people can be “sincere but mistaken” about questions of fact. When facts are well-known and thoroughly documented and people who know better mis-state them anyway, I see nothing “sincere” about that.
You still haven’t described which facts I’m incorrect about in this exchange. I therefore dispute the second sentence of your second paragraph. Characterizing someone who knowingly makes false statements as a “liar” is not being a bully, it is telling the truth.
I do sincerely believe that Mr. DeLeo and Mr. Baker are lying when they say that new taxes are not needed. You have not yet offered any facts that contract my assertion, and it sounds as though you agree with me that in fact new taxes are, in fact, needed.
Until you offer facts that refute the contention we each agree about — that new taxes ARE needed — then I don’t see that I owe you or anybody else an apology.
TheBestDefense says
You called everyone who disagrees with you about new revenue a liar, including my neighbors in the southeast part of the state because they do not want to pay more taxes for your MBTA.They are tired of being told by the self-righteous that they should pay for your benefit. I am calling you on this. You owe them all an apology, regardless of party affiliation.
You also wrote about me: “I therefore, again, invite you to offer evidence that new taxes are NOT needed.” I am calling you out on that too. Clearly you failed again to read what I actually wrote and now are taking the self-righteous road. I am not waiting for an apology from you because I already know enough about you that I DO NOT CARE if you apologize. As I have written here before, my main reason to be on BMG is too stop stupid ideas, strategy and dishonesty.
You might ask your spiritual counselor for a working definition of what a lie is. Or you could use this one:
“L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there are at least four necessary conditions for lying. First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement condition). Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful (untruthfulness condition). Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to another person (addressee condition). Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to deceive the addressee condition).”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/
SomervilleTom says
You’ve offered no reason why I owe anybody an apology.
Let’s use your definition (it’s as good as any):
L1: Both Mr. Baker and Mr. DeLeo have stated that “no new taxes are needed”. L1 is satisfied.
L2: Both Mr. Baker and Mr. DeLeo are aware of the depth of the current budget crisis. They are each aware of, for example, the impact of the Big Dig debt burden on the MBTA. They each know that leaving that burden in place will complete the job of destroying the MBTA, and they each know that new taxes are needed if the state is to assume that burdren. A similar argument can be made for the regressive nature of property taxes, and of the way that Prop 2 1/2 has worsened that regressive nature. Our cities and towns, particularly in Western MA, are suffering, they are prohibited from further property tax increases, and the state cannot afford to increase state aid without new taxes. L2 is satisfied.
L3: Both Mr. Baker and Mr. DeLeo made their statements on the record and to journalists. Each of their statements was widely noted and reacted to. L3 is satisfied
L4: Both Mr. Baker and Mr. DeLeo want us to believe that no new taxes are needed. They each desire our support and votes. L4 is satisfied.
I get that you are perhaps less comfortable than me in using the term “lie” in a public forum. That’s fair enough.
Nevertheless, I see no reason to apologize. The assertion meets the four criteria you identify — our difference appears to be whether or not we publicly admit that.
TheBestDefense says
Neither Baker nor DeLeo want to destroy the MBTA. You proposition is stunning in its assumption that you know what either one thinks or wants. I am guessing you have never had a conversation with either one about the MBTA.
Both are playing a long game that includes a mix of privatization (partially achieved), reforming the MBTA retirement system and getting a lot of other changes that will reduce the cost of a pathetic system. I am glad to see that the new examinations of the MBTA are revealing some horrible practices that will be terminated (like the overtime policies) and that nobody in the lege or exec knew about.
No, you continue to fabricate that you know the intentions of people you have never met. Please stop.
SomervilleTom says
I said that both Mr. Baker and Mr. DeLeo are aware of the depths of the current crisis. I said they are aware of the impact of leaving the Big Dig debt burden on the MBTA. Numerous outside studies have identified this debt burden as fatal if not addressed.
We’ve both seen the “long game” that both parties have played until now, and we’ve seen it’s devastating consequences. You ask me, and us, to believe that something has changed even though neither you nor anyone else offers even a hint as to what that change is. Your list of “long gain” items omits any mention of Big Dig debt. If they don’t know that leaving the Big Dig debt burden in place will destroy the MBTA, then they are willfully ignorant.
The criterion here (L2) is “Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful (untruthfulness condition)”.
They each know that the state must take over the Big Dig debt burden — requiring a tax increase. They each know that failing that, the MBTA will be destroyed. If there is a plan to remove the Big Dig debt burden from the MBTA without requiring a tax increase, then I invite you to describe the plan and show that either knows of its existence.
I suggest that L2 is still satisfied. I’ve offered evidence to make my case. You’ve offered none.
I’m sorry that it makes you uncomfortable when I reject the excuses offered about such matters. I’m eager to hear about solutions and alternatives that you know of and that I (and the rest of us) don’t.
So far, you’ve mostly slammed me for putting you, Mr. Baker, and Mr. DeLeo on the spot. Shoot me if you like, but I’m just the messenger.
The fact remains that the state needs desperately needs to increase taxes on the wealthy, and the fact remains that neither Mr. Baker nor Mr. DeLeo are willing to admit this reality.
You may characterize that as you will, but I’m NOT willing to be silent about it.
If there is a way to replace Mr. DeLeo with someone who will face the reality that is all around us, I will do all in my power to encourage that replacement. If that man or woman is a Democrat, that’s great. If that man or woman is from some other party, that’s great too.
Mr. DeLeo MUST be replaced.
SomervilleTom says
I agree with you when you write “Maybe we are the ones who are out of step with the party.”
I am certainly out of step with the governance in practice today, while the lege is overwhelmingly populated with officials with a “D” in their title.
Hence my interest in alternative parties, like UIP.
SomervilleTom says
I wanted to offer a succinct answer to the perhaps rhetorical question you ask in your first paragraph — “Yes”.
Yes, the Massachusetts Republicans are lying. Charlie Baker is lying, and his supporters are lying. The plain fact is that new taxes are desperately needed, any objective analysis of the current situation (especially regarding the MBTA) confirms that.
If you haven’t heard me “accuse the Repubs as liars for saying the same thing”, you must not be paying much attention to what I write here.
I expect the GOP to lie, it seems to be in their political DNA — they’ve lied all our lives (you and I are contemporaries). I have higher standards for those who claim to be Democrats.
jconway says
And especially agree with you it’s been a bipartisan failure for the past four decades of mismanagement and incompetence. And I was very vocally in favor of the gas tax indexing, as was my candidate when he ran for governor in 2014. I completely agree with your analysis which is why I think having a coordinated campaign to bring new blood, new ideas, and serious people into the legislature is a needed jolt to the system.
centralmassdad says
That makes it even worse in my view. If the homophobe/abortion caucus actually took power in the legislature, then that caucus would cease to be at the next election. This is Massachusetts, after all.
This is another instance of DeLeo et al. “bravely” taking a liberal position that is virtually unopposed in the Commonwealth, and even gets support from Republicans.
Christopher says
…that the Speaker is not quite the pariah some here make him out to be. I think in general the Speaker has too much power and I would have preferred keeping term limits in place. However, I think he is in the middle of the party, neither progressive hero nor DINO.
jconway says
News to me
JimC says
Or get some sleep anyway. Taking tax increases off the table is a far cry from the Norquist pledge, and you (used to) know it.
One allows taxes to be put back on the table if circumstances change, the other is a lifetime pledge complete with a primary threat if it’s ever violated.
jconway says
And she has worked far harder for the Democratic Party than most of us here. She has worked far more with disadvantaged people requiring their constitutional right to a defense and brought up great points.
I am not trolling by pointing out facts, that it is fiscally irresponsible to rule out tax increases in the manner he has taken them off the table. The only circumstances that will change his mind are political changes that affect his power and bottom line. David largely agreed with my sentiment as well that it’s bad politics to do so. Perhaps the net roots community is out of touch with the Democratic leadership and its priorities and maybe that’s something that should we change, I don’t see why we have to be the ones that fold first.
JimC says
Sorry JC but your reply makes my point. It’s one thing for Amberpaw or David to make a comparison like that. I respect, encourage, and occasionally engage in that kind of rhetorical tough love.
But it’s quite another for you to do it, Mr. UIP. It’s almost — not quite, distinctions matter — the equivalent of saying “Both sides do it.” Both sides do SOME things, not all.
I am (still) kidding when I call you a troll. But you’re in danger of mistaking your new self-interest for the truth. Keep making the distinctions you always have. Peace.
SomervilleTom says
In my view, the term “troll” is reserved for a person who intentionally publishes comments whose purpose is to draw attention to the troll and divert the discussion, thread, or blog accordingly. One hallmark of a troll is to aggressively assert one side of a dichotomy (“Climate change alarmists are corrupt and evil”) and shortly thereafter (sometimes in the same thread) assert the other (“Climate change is imminent and those who disagree are corrupt and evil”).
I see no evidence that any commentary from jconway comes close to this. I get that you’re being ironic or sarcastic, and the attempt misses the mark for me — we already have our share of trolls here at BMG, and jconway is not among them.
jconway says
I didn’t betray my principles to join the UIP, if anything, I was tired of Democratic leaders betraying progressives time and time again with their self interested and short term politics. You can look me up back to 2006 and I’ve been making the same complaints for the past decade, as have most members of this community, it’s editors and many progressive members of the legislature I’ve interacted with behind closed doors when they can be candid.
The Republicans are a rump party and a joke in MA beyond the occasional governor or fluke senator. And judging by the reception Gov. Baker received in the chamber the other day you would think it was his party that held the supermajority. In many ways, it really is, and that’s the business as usual I am hoping to help change. And if that’s not the dictionary definition of progressive, I don’t know what is. Certainly nothing DeLeo has done in his four decades in office.
JimC says
I’m not hostile, especially to you. I’m suspicious of the UIP.
You say UIP is about LGBT rights. Sorry but I don’t remember that from the Falchuk campaign. Maybe it was there, and I didn’t pay enough attention.
You say you’re going to primary DINOs. Well one man’s DINO is another woman’s Democrat in a marginal district. Are there people in the Massachusetts Legislature I would consider DINOs? Probably. But everyone’s definition varies.
I want to drop this topic now. I seem to be in the minority among the more vocal people here, who have been welcoming. That’s fine, but I’m suspicious. Once again, peace.
jconway says
What good is a progressive supermajority in the most liberal state in the country if it cowers in a corner and rolls over on nearly every progressive priority time and time again? What good is a progressive caucus if all it says is “maybe next time” or “if we are nice to Mistah Speakah he’ll give us transgender rights”? What good are marginal seats if they prop up a majority like that?
Be bold and be willing to risk losing some seats to pass bold things. Many others agree with me that a smaller majority might actually be more progressive and more responsive to the net roots and grassroots community. All we are offering is an alternative to more of the same, nothing to be scared of, I actually think if we pull it off it’ll be quite inspiring. Anyway, I don’t fear you and still enjoy reading your stuff. I find nothing suspicious about you or Christopher sticking with the one that brung you, if anything I am working to see your loyalty finally be rewarded with government you can be proud of.
SomervilleTom says
I must say I have some of the same qualms about the UIP.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Colleen Garry is a Republican. She may have have a “D” next to her name, but she’s no Democrat. I similarly have no doubt that Denise Provost is a true-blue Democrat.
The legislature, as a whole, governs too much like Ms. Garry and not enough like Ms. Provost. I blame that on the leadership.
I don’t know if the UIP can help. Here at BMG, Christopher seems more connected to the inner workings of the Massachusetts Democratic Party than pretty much any other participant — he offers no evidence that the Massachusetts Democratic Party (a) even believes there’s a problem, and (b) has any ability to do anything if there is.
I know I’ll never support the GOP, and I see no reason to believe the Massachusetts Democratic Party is going to do anything whatsoever to change anything. That means I’m left looking at the third parties — and UIP looks the most promising of any of them.
At the moment, I’d like to see the UIP taking a stronger stand about reversing our wealth concentration. I think jconway can only help them.
I share some of the suspicions that jimc alludes to — I’m just watching to see how all this plays out.
Christopher says
I’m really not trying to be obstinate about this, but beyond being better about at least communicating what the platform is to our legislators I’m still not sure what the institutional party can do. Last time it was tried even convention balked at an official scorecard of how closely legislators adhere to the platform. On the DSC there are those who wish things were different and those who actively back the officials you complain about. Ultimately the political realities of the district trump the ideological wishes of the party.
Meanwhile, you should try to convince Rep. Provost to run for Speaker. Just because term limits are no longer in the rules doesn’t mean the incumbent has to be re-elected. However, you can’t beat somebody with nobody.
jconway says
Look, we are all trying to find avenues of engagement that make us feel we are effecting meaningful change. I have nothing but respect for people who’ve worked for decades within the system trying to make it better, and it’s only natural to have some misgivings about an outsider party that is growing quickly due to the grassroots but is the offshoot of one outsider businessman’s campaign for Governor. Having re-read some of these posts I can get where those questions are coming from, and concede they are genuine and not hostile. My answer remains give us a shot and let us prove to you that we are different. Our platform and engagement efforts start from the same place: treat voters like adults.
Our issues aren’t really with the Speaker, but with the broader culture of safe incumbency that has made too many voters feel Beacon Hill is unresponsive no matter which party is in charge. There are plenty of incumbents in both parties that are trying to change that, plenty more in both parties that are more than happy with the status quo. Only 19% say they a are satisfied with state government but 54% of state legislators go unchallenged. That’s a disconnect I hope to change, and I think if we are successful it will improve the states political conversation as a whole. I already think that’s happened with the Olympics and the GE deal, where adult conversations finally broke through past all the cheerleading and glad handling and forced the debate to go in a different direction. I will work very hard to build on that.
centralmassdad says
A lot of Massachusetts’ problem, in my view, is the massive amounts of power that is wielded entirely by the Senate President and House Speaker. There has to be alternative centers of power. That requires rules changes that are BORING as can be, but seem to me to be entirely essential.
merrimackguy says
Typically you would expect that in a legislature.
It’s very hard to understand where someone stands on an issue if there’s no debate, and very hard to run against someone with so few votes to call them out on.
You would at least get the Republican and Progressive minorities having the opportunity to raise some issues, and I’d like to see legislators who vote with the Speaker actually have to defend his goals.
SomervilleTom says
I understand and accept the limits you describe about the Massachusetts Democratic Party can do.
I’m pretty sure that Ms. Provost knows far more than I what her next steps are. If she asks me, I’ll offer her my candid opinion.
Let me just remind all of us that there is nothing “ideological” nor wishful about the reality of what we are doing to local cities and towns with the current tax system. Similarly, there is nothing ideological nor wishful about the deplorable condition of the MBTA. The Boston Business Journal reported this week that the MBTA is the worst in the nation:
While Democrats squabble about “political realities”, conditions in the state get worse and worse.
I suggest that there is an even more fundamental political reality that will trump all those you mention — as things get worse and worse, voters will turn on those in office. Most voters don’t know or care why “The Democrats” don’t change anything.
What most Massachusetts voters see, instead, is that Massachusetts Democrats have been in control of the legislature for generations, and things keep getting worse and worse.
Sooner or later, that’s going to hurt people who call themselves “Massachusetts Democrats”.
jconway says
She is a great and courageous representative, voting against term limits to her credit. I just worry that the good Democrats are in the minority on that side of Beacon Hill. It’s not about stopping the speaker or moving the Dems to the left or the GOP closer to the middle. I am hopeful we will be successful in attracting some new, bold and exciting candidates willing to be honest about the issues and transparent about serving their constituents. We will see, the hard work starts tomorrow.
SomervilleTom says
Taking taxes off the table in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are desperately needed is, in fact, a classic third-and-five call out of the Norquist play-book.
I invite a citation of any public statement from Mr. DeLeo where he either (a) supports a significant increase in taxes on the wealthy, or (b) describes the circumstances under which he would support such an increase.
In the meantime, his enthusiastic passion for casino gambling puts himself in the position of fullback on the resulting draw pulled out of that playbook above. He’s ramming his regressive politics right through the middle of the defensive line protecting our poorest citizens.
The question is whether and who will stop him. The Massachusetts Democratic Party has shown itself to be unable and unwilling to do so.
It is no accident that this “unindicted co-conspirator” will also benefit greatly (at least in the short-run) from the casino development slated to occur in his district. His long personal history with North Shore gambling — his father worked at Wonderland during his entire childhood, both Wonderland and Suffolk Downs are in his district, he has close to political and personal ties to the industry — reinforces the perception that Mr. DeLeo will NEVER support a tax increase when there are gamblers to be victimized instead.
The observation from Christopher that he thinks Mr. DeLeo’s posture “is in the middle of the party” reinforces my growing belief that my party has left me behind. I’m a life-long Democrat. I joined the Democratic Party AFTER it expelled the southern racists from its ranks.
The Democratic Party that I have been a part of for forty five years does NOT support exploiting the poor so that the wealthy can take even more. It does NOT assert that “no new taxes are necessary” when vital services needed by the entire state are collapsing and crumbling while the very wealthy pay an ever-decreasing share of their wealth and income in taxes.
Whatever the Massachusetts Democratic Party is today, its actions and elected officials do NOT represent me.
Christopher says
…but I think jimc also has a point, except for where he calls you a troll.
jconway says
And I will work better to respond in a way that moves the conversation forward rather than weighing it down with disagreements at the margins. On the bigger questions, JimC remains optimistic that our state government can do great things. I share that optimism, which is why I am moving cross country and making a major life change to work on what I feel is the best movement to accomplish that. The self interested decision was staying in Chicago and waiting for grad school to fall into place. This was the road less traveled and it’s already been bumpy (still in Chicago btw: thanks Jonas!).
You can look through my own posts and I shared some of these suspicions about UIP during the 2014 campaign. What won me over was the bold stance against the Olympics and the fact that they achieved their goal and are realistic about what they hope to accomplish. And the more I looked at their platform and their vision the easier it was to see how it aligned with what I wanted to do.