In an Op-Ed piece in yesterday’s Globe regressive candidate Kerry Healey proposed wringing $200 million out of the state pension program through a variety of expedients including establishing a 501(k) program for state employees. The proposal was dutifully attacked today by the Globe. “[T]he siren of privatization would steer this ship far off course,” the newspaper wrote, without ever explaining exactly what is wrong with 501(k)s except that support for them is “tenet of Republican orthodoxy.” Maybe that is enough for the newspaper.
The place Healey went wrong was more general. By highlighting incompetence in the state government on her watch, she emphasizes her own failings. Massachusetts, says our Lietenant Governor, has an “archaic pension system.” Well, for heaven’s sake, whose fault is that but her own. She’s the #2 official in the state. If Willard and she, and the legislature and courts, haven’t been able to fix the problem by now, what gives anyone any confidence she’ll do better with four more years.
Incumbents need to run on the record of the state’s performance on their watch. Since Kerry Healey and the Romney administration don’t have many of those, they’re reduced to electoral Russian roulette: snapping examples of failures that occurred on their watch into the campaign chamber, aiming the barrel at their political temples, pulling the trigger, and hoping the simple drama of the gesture attracts spectators. It definitely isn’t going to convince voters with an interest in substantive progress.
It’s a campaign. Sure, KH will run on KH/MR record, claiming balanced budget without new taxes, universal health care. We’ll see how those go over.
<
p>
But new ideas will be floated.
<
p>
The strategy of dismissing every incumbent idea simply by asking “Why haven’t they done it already?” – as per Bob above – is just not effective.
<
p>
KH’s point is that the system of 100+ localities each running their own pension is inefficient, and that a few retirees are gaming the system to bleed taxpayers, and that the state may attract more young talent if their retirement savings are portable.
<
p>
You can argue status quo is actually okay. You can argue for different reform. But it’s a substantive proposal.
<
p>
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Romney or Healy– well, maybe more for Romney, as we have come to know him better– but the “state’s performance on their watch” isn’tr one of them. If anything, the state’s performance in recent years reflects badly on the Demorcratic party, which, it bears pointing out, HAVE HAD A VETO PROOF MAJORITY IN THE LEGISLATURE FOR FOURTEEN YEARS.
The reason it’s an own goal is that an incumbent does have to run on their record, no matter what GGW may write — and they should defend it and point to their achievements, not focus on what a bad job they have been doing and how botched and ineffective the state has been under their leadership. Thus, an own goal. The likelihood, after all, is that there will be a Democratic majority in the legislature in 2007 and beyond.
First, you’re assuming that all the Dems in the Legislature march to one step and thus could automatically override anything. As we all know, the Democratic party isn’t nearly this monolithic.
<
p>
Second, there’s a significant difference between the executive and the legislature. The executive — the Governor — is responsible for actually carrying things out. The Legislature can pass all the laws it wants to, but it’s still on the Governor’s head to carry them out and implement things. Thus, unless the Legislature wants to micro-manage and specify every single little detail (and they’ll never agree on this, see point 1), the Governor still has a lot of leeway on various decisions.
<
p>
And a lot of these decisions bear on the state’s performance. Romney and Healy have a lot to answer to. I’m not exculpating the Legislature, but even though the Legislature is dominated by a veto-proof majority of Democrats, the Governor is still responsible for a lot, and has a share in the state’s state.
<
p>
The problem I see is, indeed, the point you (perhaps unwittingly) make: the Republicans can indeed blame everything on the Legislature since it is 85% (?) Democratic. We’ll need to make sure that Romney and Healy accept their share of the blame for all that’s gone wrong here in the last four years.
<
p>
It’ll be a big challenge…
You are correct that the governor still retains executive power, even if the Democratic legislature has a veto proof majority. And that governor has much to be answerable for, given his record of exercising that power.
<
p>
But I was referring to the post referring to a specific proposal to reform the pension system for state employees by, among other things, implementing a 401(k) type program. This is probably a good idea, at least from a budget perspective, but could not be done without legislation. But that legislation would be opposed by public-sector unions, and would probably be a non-starter in the legislature.
<
p>
And so the failure to implement these reforms are the governor’s fault?
Do you REALLY think people are HAPPY Bulger won his lawsuit to have his HOUSING ALLOWANCE (are things that tough in Southie? Hoiw does Reilly handle HIS rent? an unreported in-kind donation?) as well as his ANNUITY (which he had why?) included in his ENHANCED PENSION?
<
p>
Serve as a selectman for 20 years, and two terms in the Legislature – and go home with the BIG prize – 80% of your highest salary for four years work! And YOU, lucky taxpayers, get to fund this!
<
p>
Full disclosure – I have worked for State gubmint, but am not vested. However, I have NEVER worked less than a 60 hour week for a salary, so I would make out fine under the Healey plan – my actual contribution would be the basis of any pension, not some bogus ‘time in service’ stipend.
Are you saying that someone pays Reilly’s rent for him?
If Tom Reilly can swing HIS rent unaided, why did the corrupt midget need a housing allowance?
<
p>
He IS paying his own way?
I mean it. Here’s an insider exposing the MA pension scam at the local level. Probably works the same at the state level too.
<
p>
Any wonder why cities and towns are having financial problems? Peter just explained: unfunded pension liability. Local voters know this. That’s why Prop 2.5 overrodes are being shot down, especially for “more teachers.” They have their own fat pensions paid for by the tax payer. Property owners are saying basta.
<
p>
Remember, for every toll-taker on the Pike with 7 years service, he gets an fat pension.
<
p>
Peter Porcupine for Governor!
However, my initial inclination is that I would not take the job with a pound of tea!
I’m sorry, I read your comment incorrectly, thanks for the clarification.
Just because it’s coming from a Republican, that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. I used to work with some of the many small pension plans spread throughout the Commonwealth, and I’ve worked on pension reform and policy for a few years now. The reform Healy speaks of is an excellent idea.
<
p>
It will meet a ton of resistance from the Democratic legislature, understandably so as a significant and active percentage of the Democratic base will want to preserve the current system (state jobs would be lost if plans were consolidated). That’s too bad.
I’m saying it is bad politics for Healey to criticize herself, and I’m urging her opponents to use this against her. Fine, it’s a brilliant idea: why wasn’t she pushing for it years ago, and what gives anyone any confidence that she can accomplish it if she gets elected since no progress has been made to date. The fact is that the woman is ineffective and can’t get things done, and this kind of own goal makes that point very forcefully.
Dems control everything in this state. Pension system is their design. They’re making a fiscal mess which will take a generation to fix.
<
p>
You think all this contributes to MA’s highest cost of living in the nation?