I just finished reading an article called “Tax Talk” by Dave Denison on the MassInc. website. I think it’s very insightful piece and supports my (sadly held) belief that this election is Kerry Healey’s to lose. I can’t provide a link as login is required, but You can find the story at this link. (Link updated by David. You may have to register, but it’s free.)
Somebody point out the flaws (if any) they see in Mr. Denison’s facts and conclusions.
UPDATE (by David): This article is quite a good read, with useful historical data all collected in one place. Here’s his conclusion:
Itâs common in the stateâs liberal and affluent enclaves to chalk up this aversion to higher taxes to peopleâs selfishness, or to an unwillingness among suburbanites to support services that they imagine benefit people in the cities, or to an unreasonable demand for more government services and lower taxes at the same time. When Democrats cry, âtell the truth!â [as Scott Harshbarger famously did in a 1998 debate with Paul Cellucci] they usually mean they want Republicans to stop promising better government and more tax cuts.
But when the debate goes in this direction it is almost impossible for Democrats to avoid a condescending note that doesnât play well with the voters: Donât be fooled by Republican promises. Thereâs no free lunch. If you want good schools and better health care and social services you have to pay for them.
Suppose, though, that the most tax-averse voters â the ones who may very well decide the governorâs race this fall â already know that. Suppose they donât want to see severe cutbacks in state government and donât want to see taxes creeping up, either. They want stability. They want about as much government as theyâve been getting, and no more.
That makes for a profoundly unprogressive politics. It turns the governor into a glorified town manager. But we are in a state where the middle-class considers itself maxed out. And we are in an era when a candidate who equates progress with taxes (or even hints at that) will need to have more magnetism or charm or passionâand persuasive powerâthan anyone weâve seen in Massachusetts politics in a long, long time.
Make no mistake: those are the voters that any Democrat – particularly Deval Patrick, who has stuck his neck out the furthest on taxes – MUST find a way of reaching if he is going to beat Kerry Healey.
I meant to include the question mark in the title of my original post. I am a pessimist, but I am not a fatalist.
Actually, Mass Inc does a ton of good articles in “Commonwealth Magazine.”
<
p>
Perhaps BMG could set up something with an author from there each month? A chat or something?
I’ll ask around. Who would you like to see post here?
…it’s to late to find the latest poll, but Deval was doing the best against hyer and it was only about a 7 point lead. Within easy range of pulling off a win.
<
p>
While I do find her a light weight, I resect the Republican tactics and there are many folks on this blog that don’t see the warning signs.
Every dollar that she has to spend is a warning sign. However, if candidates are like cars and money is like fuel, Healey’s an SUV: It’s going to take a lot of gas to get to the finish line.
Frank is right. People are sick and tired of paying for government in Massachusetts. Period. The Big Dig just reinforces that. And while it is true that Republicans managed the CA/Tastrophe, the Big Bosses are in the legislature, and everyone knows that.
Here’s one idea for progressives: stop advocating that state government do EVERYTHING. Maybe the smart move is to adopt exactly the caretaker “town manager” role, not the progressive, tax-spending visionary role.
<
p>
Especially in this cycle, look for Healy to use the Big Dig fiasco to argue against the progressive candidate in spite of liberals’ attempt to “pin” the Big Dig ceiling collaspe/death on Republicans.
<
p>
I predict the Healy campaign will successfully use government’s foul-ups, wastefulness and general ineptitude (“$15 billion and the roof caves in …”) to argue against — repeat: against — the Democratic nominee.
Here’s one idea for regressives: stop advocating that state government do NOTHING. Maybe the smart move is to adopt exactly the caretaker “town manager” role, not the regressive, tax-slashing myopic role.
<
p>
Especially in this cycle, look for Dems to use the Big Dig fiasco to argue against the regressive candidate in spite of conservatives’ attempt to “pin” the Big Dig ceiling collaspe/death on Matt Ammorello.
<
p>
I predict the Dem campaign will successfully use government’s foul-ups, wastefulness and general ineptitude (“$15 billion and the roof caves in …”) to argue against — repeat: against — the Republican nominee.
<
p>
<
p>
Not so different, huh?
Everything people are unhappy about is their fault.
<
p>
Mediocre schools.
High property taxes.
Frustrating medical care.
Crappy parks.
Trains without air conditioning.
A tunnel that collapses and kills an innocent woman.
<
p>
Finneran’s gone. Bulger’s gone. The mess on Beacon Hill is the executive branch’s fault. And, BTW, it’s going to be a good Democratic year nationally.
<
p>
This, along with a great candidate and field organization, is the way we win this year, DESPITE the R’s willingness to pander about taxes and lie about services.
<
p>
Having Christy on the ballot (and, God help us, not having Grace Ross) would be a plus as well.
How dumb do you think voters are?
<
p>
Romney and Healey both say openly that the 87% Democrat legislature can do whatever it wants – their only job is to be canary in the coal mine, like with the Melanie’s Law fiasco, where the Dems jetted off to Portugal after gutting the bill. If there wasn’t a GOP governor, nobody would ever have known.
<
p>
BTW – if the GOP loses ONE more House seat – there will not be 20 Minority members to rise to force a roll call vote. EVERYTHING can be done on a voice vote with no accountability. Then, if it works out, the Dems can say – I backed that. If it doesn’t, they can say they were against it all along.
<
p>
That’s why Kerry will be elected in November, no matter who you put up.
So to paraphrase, The Executive Branch of government in Massachusetts (run by Republicans for the last 16 years) has no authority and has done nothing. Fill in this blank: The Governor has the power to ___________________. Has he used that power? Has he used it wisely?
It ain’t just “the Legislature” versus “the Guv” — as you put it, it’s the dole ham “Executive Branch” that has been on hold for 16 years.
<
p>
As one of my local State Reps put it after he met with some Romney official “in charge” of certain environmental matters, “I just had a nice conversation with my coffee cup — these guys don’t give a damn about my constituents, the environment, or anything else, based on their total lack of response to my concerns!”
After years of Romney, Weld, Cellucci and whomever, the GOP record is worn out. The fact of the matter is that the Governor makes critical appointments. These are appointments to run the government, which has clearly been despised and maligned by these idiots. You seem to go along with the flow (or is it the Koolaid?). Problem is everyone, including Republicans and independents, relies on government to be there. The proof of mismanagement is staring everyone in the face in the news every day. GOP appointees have failed to manage, and most were appointed not based on qualifications but because they were Goopers. The Big Dig CA/Tastrophe would not have happened if the Goopers cared about management. Do you remember Brown and Chertoff and what happened after Katrina? I think lots of voters got a 24 hour a day media lesson in what happens when politically appointed, inept goopers are put in charge of critical services. The Big Dig is no different. It is absolute proof that we cannot entrust another gooper to run government. Only those who care about managing government services (who don’t want to eliminate and destroy them) should be put in a position to manage them. Republican have failed miserably. Time to fix the mess with a smart, management savvy Democrat.