Here's the second video message from the Governor on the sales tax, which came out on Friday. It's a call for action from us jes' folks, as well as a nudge to the legislature.
I think it's good, solid, bold yet respectful. It's how politics should be done. Good politics, good policy, and certainly the gov's got nothing to lose by trying this strategy.
Please share widely!
This thoughtful framing of issues and gift for communication are the biggest reasons why I’ve supported Patrick since 2005. I was shocked when I saw the rollcall on the sales tax vote and am concerned that even the progressives in the House have decided that if the governor’s for it, they’re against it. This message gives me hope that there will be a way to address the Commonwealth’s biggest problems without having to resort to oneupsmanship.
But Governor, we’re going to be paying more for roads and bridges and mass transit regardless of how much reform is implemented.
<
p>The T’s facing a $160 million deficit and is looking at huge service cuts coupled with at least 30% increases in fares. We simply cannot “reform” our way out of this hole, and holding vital funding hostage is not the way to solve our transportation crisis.
<
p>Whether or not we pay more is not the choice we face. It’s how we’re going to pay. It can either be in the form of reduced service and increased fares/tolls or through a broader tax that provides a long-term solution to our transportation needs.
raise the taxes now, and trust the lege to do the right thing down the road.
<
p>No thanks. We’ve tried the “trust us” approach, and what we end up with is weekly front-page stories about more inane pension loopholes for ex-legislators. It’s ridiculous. The Gov is absolutely right to insist that the public be given some modicum of reassurance that additional tax money will not be flushed down the crapper.
this blog became a subsidary of the Patrick Committee – shame!
Patrick has been called out here on many occasions and with great fanfare from the Herald and Globe. But they just call it like they see it.
<
p>Where is the bottleneck?
<
p>It’s not from Patrick.
of the post not the media
Gov. Deval Patrick – pushing new taxes and preaching reform – continues to practice old-style patronage politics, handing his campaign manager’s sister a plum six-figure gig and hiring her close pal to an $83,000-a-year post.
Patrick… gave his former campaign manager – and current state Democratic Party chairman – John Walsh’s sister Patty Vantine a $105,000-a-year position at the Department of Conservation and Recreation….
<
p>The Herald also has learned that Patrick hired Martina Jackson, a longtime campaign supporter and member of the Democratic State Committee, as the $65,000-a-year communications director for the Department of Elder Affairs.
<
p>Ya, he’s real serious now! What a joke!
That may be the Legislatures tactic, but it shouldn’t be yours.
I WANT reform. I’m also saying while Deval talks a tough game he’s breaking his own supposed credo on a regular basis. And he keeps on doing it in the face of the public (Sen Walsh…). Doesn’t he understand how much of a hypocrite he sounds like or aloof/”out of touch” Gov at the very best.
I gave this a “0” because this is at least the third time you have posted this exact post. Third time’s a charm.
<
p>You neglect to point out that the elevation of Vantine — already employed by the state — to the position named in the article was done in July 2008, nine months ago.
<
p>You also neglect to point out that Vantine was the one that hired her “close pal” — not Patrick.
<
p>The Herald article did not point out when Jackson was hired.
And oh btw, Deval has been supposedly fighting this budget battle for 18 months now so even hiring these hacks in 2008 does not give him immunity.
First, I’m not convinced that everything described is an example of Deval Patrick “hiring” someone. Why? Because in the Vantine case, she was already working for the state. She took on a new position. The Herald didn’t report whether someone else vacated that position, presumably because that went against the frame they were pushing.
<
p>Second, I don’t have a big problem with political hires to lead state agencies, because when we elect a governor, we are electing an administration too — not just administering the governor’s office, but administering state government. The governor is the CEO, he should control who runs the agencies.
<
p>I think that the Herald has succeeded in turning the term “patronage hire” nearly into a crime. I just don’t agree with that sentiment for people in key positions within an administration. It is Deval Patrick’s administration, he should have some control over it — otherwise it is a no-headed bureaucracy, controlled by no one.
<
p>The term now also implies that the person hired is not qualified for the job. Rob Brown heading FEMA comes to mind – didn’t he run horse shows before taking over this important federal agency? Is that being alleged here? Nope. The Herald is just relying on people’s stereotype of a patronage hire to imply it.
<
p>Hiring someone that supported you, yet someone who is qualified for the job, is perfectly legit in my mind. Should he have hired people who opposed him or who donated to Kerry Healey, or people who did not donate to anyone? That would be a ridiculous position to take.
<
p>The Herald seemed more interested in pushing this frame of “during a fiscal crisis the governor is hiring his friends” — even though the facts of the article contradict that frame.
So why not blame the Globe for focussing attention on a stupid issue? This law was passed in 1950 before anyone who is currently in the legislature got there. It needs to be fixed, but is it that important to justify the wasted column inches?
<
p>And, “we’ve tried the ‘trust us’ approach…”? What exactly does that refer to?
<
p>I love that you guys have no, none, not any historical perspective on anything that has to do with governing in this state. I have said it once and I will say it again – while the Republicans were attempting to dismantle public services in this state for twenty years, only the Democratic legislature stood in the way.
<
p>You do not have to love every vote the legislature has ever made to understand that if we had to trust one branch of government, we are better off trusting in the legislature that is closest to the voters than the executive that is closet to the power elites.
I’m your Governor, we need cash. But why raise taxes on the status quote without cleaning up Government. I won’t sign a broad based tax increase like those bastards in the Legislature passed unless I get a few things.
<
p>First, pension reform. Now admittedly, pension reform won’t save you very much money. What the heck, the fund is so far underwater, I wonder if it’ll be around 5 years from now. But, it’s less important to worry about a silly little $40 billion underfunding when there are 10 or 15 politicians who’ll get $20,000 or so apiece extra because they worked the system.
<
p>And speaking of working the pension system, let’s talk about transportation reform. We’ve got to stop MBTA employees from retiring after 23 years regardless of their age. This change will save us hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars.
<
p>And lets talk about ethics laws. Had we toughened the ethics laws to make holding office nearly impossible because of the stack of paper work, well, Diane Wilkerson would have never been caught stuffing cash in her bra. Oh heck, who am I kidding, sure she would. Nevermind. Where am I going with this.
<
p>Oh yeah. So give me these reforms, because if you do, then I’ll go along with the broad based tax increase and I’ll have some good reform slogan for your car bumper. “Together we can” was so 2006.
you’re fine with the status quo? I understand arguments in favor of the sales tax even though I don’t agree with them. But I don’t understand the objection to reforms. Do you have other reform measures to propose?
If, your boss announced that sales in the company are sharply off, and in order to stop the losses, he ordered you to save paperclips as a necessary reform, then off he went on the company jet, leaving intact broad pension benefits for executives and rank-and-file alike, ignoring a sharply underfunded pension, ignoring any plan to pay unfunded debt, leaving intact medical coverage of the workforce, leaving intact benefits that include automatic pay increases in the event that they receive advanced degrees – a benefit far more lavish than competing businesses -, implemented a broad ethics structure to make sure more people fill out more paper proving they’re more honest, …
<
p>would you praise his phony reforms or lament his omissions.
Boy, you hate you some health coverage for just about anyone, gary.
<
p>But aside from that, the proposed ethics reforms (incl. those passed by the House) are pretty serious, in that they give the Sec. of State subpoena power. That’s not just “more paper proving they’re more honest.” With a decent SoS (which, on balance, I think we have), that’s a major disincentive to play games with lobbying vs. “strategizing” etc.
<
p>Anyway, you didn’t really address mollypat’s question of what you would propose that goes further than the gov’s proposals. If you’re proposing taking away everyone’s health benefits, then no, I’m comfortably not on board with your agenda.
<
p>Well said?
<
p>As I’ve said ad nauseum, the Governor is proposing a budget based on a revenue that doesn’t exist. As the Senate President said: “The governor’s budget, is about $1.5 billion out of whack.”
<
p>It’s actually not. It’s really $2.5 billion out of whack because, even with the $1.5 ‘out of whackness’ he’s presuming a DRAMATIC turnaround in revenues for 2010 that ignores Cahill “revenues are literally falling off a cliff”.
<
p>Aside: does Cahill know what “literally” means?
<
p>But rather than confront the question of where to get the $1.5 or $2.5, Patrick proposes a handful of reforms which provide no meaningful revenue or cost cutting, inevitably Government will be filled with a pristine set of rules, but no means to pay for them.
<
p>Whether he pays for them raising costs to the employee, raise taxes a lot more than the sales tax, cut costs, cut head, default on debt, plant a magic money tree or have a phone-a-thon and bake sale, well, Mr. Patrick doesn’t seem interested in discussing. I guess because “stop 23 and out” is much easier to sell to us stupids outside beacon hill.
<
p>
But reform matters a great deal to building a modicum of public support for new revenues or wider spending decisions be they unpopular cuts or popular expansions. You have to see that. And it was reform that got the Governor elected in the first place so it should surprise no one he has returned to it here.
<
p>You can say its misplaced or won’t matter, but much of the public debate about government surrounds marginal and, dear I say it, rather “trivial” issues – the earmarks, the contract that goes to a lawmakers cousin’s construction firm, the pension perks, the political ally getting a choice appointment, etc…. This stuff is small beer in the wider fiscal context but in the public eye defines our political institutions as dysfunctional and overshadows the often considerable achievements of state government.
<
p>Reform therefore has to be at the heart of any progressive agenda. We can’t just be seen as tax raisers or we will lose a public open to our ideas. And frankly its not the legislature that will punished for being seen in this way, its the Governor who will take the flack, especially as he campaigned as someone who would change the way Beacon Hill worked.
<
p>But as Governor Patrick said, its not politics but principle at stake here. You may not agree, but ethics reform, pensions reform, all of it, is about trying to generate some basic level of trust in our government. Trust won’t fill the fiscal hole or keep vital services up and running – only real money and efficient and effective management can do that. But greater trust can create the political space necessary for government to engage the public on the difficult choices we face from a stronger platform.
<
p>The Governor’s reforms aren’t radical – the legislature wouldn’t pass them if they were. But they are a substantive move in the right direction. They matter and they are very much pertinent to the budget and revenue debate going on now.
<
p>
The problem with baby steps on reform is that gives the reformer the option to say, “We’ve already taken great strides in reforming our pension in 2009. Vote for me”.
<
p>Pension:
<
p>-an artifact with many participants who enjoy benefits depending on when they started work, and the type of work they do.
<
p>-A State employee plan and teachers plan, each as underfunded as far as the eye can see.
<
p>-With many high profile abusers which cost the taxpayer tens or even twenties per year.
<
p>-With fund administrators littered across the state in the form of over 100 managed plans, each of which has its share of underfunding.
<
p>-Individual Authorities with their own rules, adminstrators and underfunding.
<
p>So, rather than address the significant problem, which is the cost of this dinosaur now and in the future, the Governor addresses a relatively minor abuse, calls it reform, and puts the defined benefit reform into a “win” column when really he just kicked the can down the road.
They only cost 14 bucks
There are significant cuts in the budget, this includes both the Governor’s and the House. But you just ignore the basic facts and skip to taxes, pretty convenient for your argument.
It’s sad that it’s become this epic power struggle.
<
p>We need some reforms, both in terms of getting tangible cost savings as well as for symbolic purposes. We need some new revenue. It was the Senate, only a month ago, touting “reform before revenue.” When the Governor says the same thing, or even get it to him at the same time… suddenly the Senate flips out? Seems their slogans were just words.
<
p>I don’t blame house progressives for voting for the sales tax. It’s not perfect or even ideal, but the votes just weren’t there for alternatives. However, it seems pretty sensible to pass a few more of the Governor’s reform proposals than what is currently in the House or Senate plans. A beef with the Governor shouldn’t come in the way of sensible reforms and solutions for this state.
<
p>When the gasoline tax is a better option.
<
p>But the bigger issue is related to the budget cost growth over the years and the current revenue decline. Taking a larger percentage of income from the residents, even via my preferred gasoline tax, is not a wise solution. There are currently two ways to bridge a temporary shortfall, one through the federal stimulus assistance and the other through drawing on the “rainy day” reserves.
<
p>Yes, we should make all those reforms that irk the general public, but we must go beyond that and sunset programs that are less beneficial than those that we have added in recent years to end up with a more stable budget. And as for revenue, even a gas tax increase should be enacted along with an increase in the personal exemption to allow for offset of the gas tax hike for some limited amount of usage – a tax neutral chage for those who have limited consumption of gasoline.
<
p>So, in addition to eliminating the “irksome” costs of government, what significant cost reductions should be put on the table?
If they could get rolled on this, the term “progressive caucus” really doesn’t have much meaning.
<
p>Maybe they’ll grow a spine.
This is a great message that needs to get out. Putting it on television is a great idea, maybe as a commercial (nope, too long and probably costly?) A public service announcement? On Demand on Comcast?
<
p>The media won’t play the whole thing they will just take a sound bite and then provide a brief summary.
<
p>It would be great if Governor Patrick could take every email address he has on file from the thousands of emails he has received and drop this youtube message write into those mailbox as a message from Governor Patrick.
That would reach many people, people who are interested in making a difference by writing to him. This would at least help to spread this message, and to inspire people to write to their state representatives.
<
p>I’ll be waiting for this youtube video to drop into my mailbox, as “A Message from Governor Patrick”. The technology is there, it is easy and will cost nothing. There is absolutely no reason to not take that extra step.
I’m not. But I have written to him many times. Think about all of the thousands of email addresses he has sitting in his database that he is not taking advantage of.
Go to the website of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to help one part of that government in its power struggle with another part of itself.
now with YouTube. Big whoop.
As someone who works in the Legislature, I think it rather comical the way some people on this blog talk about the Legislature and its relationship with the Governor, so I’ll share with you all an insider story.
<
p>Last week, in the House chamber during the budget debate, when I informed one Democratic lawmaker about Patrick’s Youtube video the OP liked so much, the lawmaker laughed and said somewhat comically, “F*ck him.”
<
p>There’s the inner workings of your government. Hope I didn’t shatter anyone’s preconceived misconceptions.
I don’t think your story contradicts anybody’s preconceived notion of the Legislature and its relationship with the Governor.
As Pat writes, your story doesn’t surprise anyone. But it would be interesting to know who the legislator was. If they have so much confidence in their position, they should be happy to go on the record, more or less like VP Cheney under somewhat similar circumstances.
<
p>We know how popular Mr. Cheney is in Massachusetts: he personally pounded one of the final nails into Kerry Healey’s electoral coffin.
<
p>Anyone care to speculate?