Massachusetts used to be a hub of innovative public policies, but the state that gave America its first public school and first minimum wage seems to have lost its experimental nerve, along with its status as one of the great crucibles of transformative lawmaking.
…
Taking a broad view, University of Massachusetts Lowell historian Robert Forrant didn’t mince words:
“On several significant issues — school funding, the crumbling public transportation system, health care, the opioid crisis, immigration, climate change, the re-segregation of our public schools — there is nothing that I see that is innovative and represents collaborative thinking about the problem. The Legislature and governor have mastered the fine art of appearing very, very busy while standing very, very still.”
As I keep saying, vision is just a fancy word for long-term planning … and responsive, accountable government.
This is your governor’s race right here, in a nutshell: The cautious governor, intent on “preserving political capital”, doesn’t bother to challenge the legislature. In turn, legislators give him occasional pats on the head, and aren’t made uncomfortable by any policy ambitions from the corner office. As far as it goes, there’s nothing particularly wrong with governing by broad consensus, where the things that get done are already non-controversial.
But if you’re sitting in traffic in an hour-plus-long commute; if your 10-minute T ride is more often taking 20, 30, or 40 minutes because another train caught on fire; when your commuter rail doesn’t show up; when you can’t find decent, affordable child care so that you can progress in your job; when your medical bills continue to go up; when your grown kids can’t afford to live nearby anymore; when your house lies on ground increasingly vulnerable to sea level rise …
… You might wish that our politicians had taken a risk on your behalf, instead of circling the wagons and insisting that Everything Is Fine.
As former MassDems chair John Walsh put it to me on Saturday at the convention:
It’s up to all our Democratic elected officials to stand up … Why do we need to go to the ballot [for the Fair Share amendment]? Why do we need to go to the ballot in Massachusetts to get a $15 minimum wage, or paid family leave? We have supermajorities in the legislature — vote the goddamned things in. Stand up!
So if the Democratic gubernatorial candidates adopt this line of attack against Charlie Baker — and they should — they’d better be prepared to give it to our legislature as well.
johntmay says
Because too many Democrats will tell you that people in occupations that pay less than $15 and/or do not support family leave need to “improve their skill sets and education” and apply themselves to occupations that do provide such things. That’s why.
The question I have is, how did we get to this point?
SomervilleTom says
Once again you attack Democrats, and attack them for something NOBODY does.
This comment is nothing but a GOP troll.
johntmay says
Here’s a quote from NOBODY:
Perhaps most egregiously, Democrats pay lip service to the dubious notion of a “skills gap” — a conservative idea pushed mostly by corporations as an excuse to keep wages low — by saying “Americans deserve the chance to get the skills, tools, and knowledge to find a good-paying job or to move up in their career to earn a better living.”
Research shows that if such a gap really existed, wages would be rising more quickly because of a shortage of available workers, and companies would not be shy about investing in training themselves.
SomervilleTom says
There is no place in that article where an increase in the minimum wage is opposed. There is no place in that article where family leave is opposed.
We need to go to the ballot box because our “Democratic” legislature refused to increase the minimum wage, refuses to increase taxes on the wealthy, and refused to ensure paid family leave.
That has nothing AT ALL to do with your favorite talking point against Democrats.
And, of course, once again you imply an attack on making education and training available to those who can’t afford it.
johntmay says
There is a significant place in the article that points to Dems citing a lack of skills and knowledge as the cause of low wages. game set match.
hesterprynne says
To our valuable BMG colleagues johntmay and SomervilleTom: would you guys consider rehashing this familiar debate in a separate post instead of hijacking other ones? Thx.
SomervilleTom says
You’ve cited a piece from “Business Insider” — hardly a Democratic political organ. There is link in the cited piece to another article from the same source where several executives make that argument. There is an unsourced allegation in the cited piece against “Democrats” — with absolutely NO evidence in support of it.
The web is full of right-wing sites that spread such rubbish against the Democrats.
I invite you to cite the text where any Democrat says:
You commentary misrepresents both Democrats and your own cite.
johntmay says
, call me a GOP troll, attack the messenger, it’s getting old Tom….I think I’ll take a break from your posts.
Christopher says
For crying out loud these are not mutually exclusive!
hesterprynne says
This excellent post prompts a couple thoughts:
1. On John Walsh’s point that we shouldn’t need to go to the ballot all the time. The unwillingness of the Legislature to legislate (and to be clear, most of the unwillingness comes from the House) may have us all boxed in this summer. The Gov. is hoping the Legislature comes up with a “grand bargain” to compromise on a lot of these issues before it recesses on 7/31. Even assuming the Legislature wants to step in now, there are only 54 days left in the session, and no real negotiating will happen before the SJC decides on the constitutionality of the fair share tax ballot question.
2. On “the fine art of appearing very busy while standing still.” I’m reprising a post from last year showing that the Legislature’s output over the past couple decades has been increasingly devoted to “noncontroversial” items like “designating bridges and overpasses in honor of beloved community members; establishing sick leave banks for one state employee at a time, exempting a single municipal position from the Civil Service laws, or granting one additional liquor license to one town.”
SomervilleTom says
Let’s not forget that our esteemed legislature acted immediately and decisively to put an immediate end to the scourge of “up-skirting” by voyeurs on the Green Line.
Don’t get me wrong — of course the practice should be illegal, and is now.
At the same time, it truly is striking that this same legislature is so completely paralyzed on a long and growing list of far more urgent and far more compelling issues.
I am reminded that in 2003, our mandated disclosure laws exempted ordained clergy at the explicit request of the Roman Catholic church. That was a reason cited by Tom Reilly in his refusal to pursue criminal action. That exemption was removed sometime between 2003 and 2015.
I don’t remember exactly when the exemption was removed. I do remember that it took the legislature a LOT longer to accomplish that than to close the upskirting loophole.
We do indeed have a legislature that is exquisitely skilled at “the fine art of appearing very busy while standing still.”
Trickle up says
I read the Globe story when it came out earlier this week. Horowitz’s historical examples of innovation are mostly old, and date from a time when Massachusetts had functioning political parties.
Not a huge fan of the two-party system but compared to the no-party one we have today I am not surprised that legislators are thralls to status-quo leadership (or are ostracized by same) and the result is stagnation.
johntmay says
To quote Noam Chomsky: In the US, there is basically one party – the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population.
It seems that we’ve reached that point in Massachusetts. The recent convention vote gives me hope, but it’s still a wait and see hope.
jconway says
The irony is you both agree our legislature is insufficiently progressive. I would say work together on making the party you both want. One full of Pat Jehlens and Jamie Eldridges and free of Bob DeLeos. It’s hard work, but it’s worth it to make us an innovator again. Jay and Not So Silent Bob won’t be able to do it. Only a grassroots revolution can make it happen. The right did that with the Tea Party. Time for our blue state to actually be blue. This is the eleventh year of this blog and the eleventh year of inaction on that project. I would argue we can do a lot more good for a lot more people working on those local races than debating how Trump happened or how to stop him.
Christopher says
This requires candidates for primaries, but also the acknowledgement that not all districts are as progressive as we would like.
jconway says
That’s fine. Those districts can elect real Republicans then. A smaller majority will be more progressive and able to pass legislation Democratic governors have not been able to get through the “supermajority”. I’m willing to shed 15-30 DINOs to get a real majority instead of a paper tiger.