The override votes are coming fast and furious – and one-sided. The biggest news so far is that the legislature unanimously (152-0, 38-0) overrode Romney’s veto of the bill hiking the minimum wage to $8 in two steps. Even the Republicans didn’t back Romney on that one. They’ve also restored about a gajillion dollars of the spending that Romney vetoed.
No action in the Senate yet on Chapter 40T. If you haven’t called your Senator, there’s still time.
UPDATE: Cos reports in the comments that he called the clerk’s office, who says that Romney’s veto of Chapter 40T was not overridden. That’s consistent with what I saw last night – I was keeping as up-to-date as I could on what was happening, and I never saw it come up.
There may well be a place for something like Chapter 40T. But it should be developed in conjunction with someone other than the real estate developers lobby, and it should be fully debated, not slipped into some other bill at the last minute.
Young lady on the phone had no idea what I was talking about, but promised to pass it along.
<
p>
Hope my calling didn’t queer the pitch, as I REALLY think that enshrining Kelo in our state laws is WRONG.
on the Rose Kennedy Greenway veto?
The 2007 budget is turning into a slow motion train wreck. There’s an advocate for any spending Bill on the agenda, but fiscal responsibility is an orphan.
<
p>
You’ll hear ‘tax and spend legislature’ loudly from Ms. Healey clear through November, and can you say she’s wrong? Or, even if you claim she’s wrong, that phrase will certainly play well.
There are four choices for a government:
<
p>
1. Tax and spend. This is the most responsible tact. Exactly how much to tax and spend is worthy of debate, but check out the alternatives:
2. Don’t tax and spend. A government run on credit card revolving debt sounds quite a bit like the massive inflation times of South America. Not good times.
3. Tax and don’t spend. This is a great way for the people of today to pay for the good stuff of tomorrow. It’s neither fair nor prudent, since a government shut down isn’t likely to be great for the economy, safety, or health of its citizens.
4. Don’t tax and don’t spend. This is called anarchy. Without expenditure, the government ceases to exist. Without taxes, it can’t pay for the expenditures.
<
p>
So enough with the “tax and spend” rhetoric. Tax and spend is precisely what governments does.
The debate isn’t whether or not to tax and spend, the debate is how much to tax and on what priorities to spend.
<
p>
I believe I live in a precinct, town, and state with voters wise enough to realize that government spending is important, and that it can be done prudently. You’re illogical extention to make that a blank check is asinine.
is mostly a rhetorical one (it may be substantive too, but the comment you’re responding to is I think one of style). And Fritz Mondale showed that gary is at least partially right. This is THE big challenge for Democrats, who generally – and correctly – believe that government can and should do some things well, that doing so costs money, and that the only money government has available is tax revenues. Republicans, who of course secretly know this but can’t admit it out loud, have the choice of running a basically dishonest campaign, in which they advocate for expanded programs while promising to cut taxes (see: Bush, George W.; Healey, Kerry), or promising to cut taxes and cut spending accordingly (see: ummm….anybody?).
The 2007 budget is a train wreck. Here’s why.
<
p>
The budget is based on revenues of $18.975 billion and $19.21 respectively for 2006 and 2007. 2006 revenues came in at $18.38. As a result, for 2007, $19.21 is a stretch, AND there’s trouble in sales/use collections already (7/2006).
<
p>
Corporate/individual tax collection are unusually strong, but it’s my hypothesis that they’ll weaken in the 3rd quarter as the economy slows. If so, train wreck or at least more rainy day fund drawdown.
<
p>
If I’m wrong and there’s an upturn, then I’m wrong. The prediction game is a difficult one. But, for now, assume I’m right.
<
p>
In the face of a precarious budget and the Legislature’s (gleeful) veto of money saving efforts, PRESTO! There’s the opening for Ms. Healey to claim that the Legislature is a “tax and spend” Legislature. Use the word “tax and spend” to cover the opposition with tar, baby.
<
p>
And don’t give me this condescending, nuanced crap “this is what governments do. They tax and spend.” You think I don’t know what governments do?
<
p>
The “tax and spend” label has nothing to do with reality. It’s rhetoric and it’s politics.
<
p>
You know just as well as me that the “tax and spend” label has stuck to every Democrat since Reagan pinned it to Jimmy Carter (” the tax and spend policies of a failed administration.”)
<
p>
They are words to win elections.
<
p>
And the Legislature and it’s structurally unstable budget have laid the groundwork for the win–the win for the other team.
i agree with your budget analysis, but not your political one.
<
p>
wasn’t it healey who claimed there was a billion dollar surplus in TV ads?
<
p>
hard for her to claim the budget is “precarious”…
<
p>
i’d think her position would really tick you, as a fiscal conservative, off…
Link
on the budget. So here’s my question, gary: who are you backing? Can you honestly say that Kerry Healey, who has promised just as many new “programs” as any Democrat in this race, is pursuing the fiscally responsible course? Maybe she’s just not planning to deliver on those promises and will instead cut taxes – but isn’t that dishonest?
But she does have pretty hair.
Smart money bet: Republican Govenor 2006.
…you live in Brooline, correct. I don’t know the precincts in Brookline, but the assumption is, they are all fairly liberal. I don’t think you can argue that your precinct and town are representative of the state.
“Exactly how much to tax and spend is worthy of debate …”
<
p>
Brilliant!
<
p>
How ’bout spending less then taxing less? It’s what pissed off taxpayers “do.”
<
p>
When the people have a say, they usually call for prudent spending and taxes to cover that spending (required by law anyway.)
<
p>
But the progressive approach is to submit a laundry list of programs requiring massive spending, pass bills costing way more than current revenues can pay for, then claim a fiscal crisis and levy “emergency” and “temporary” taxes.
You can walk Big Papi, but then you load the bases to face Manny. It’s not a palatable choice, but it’s out there.
One of the Romney vetoes overridden yesterday was for the last installment of pay for UMass employees from the previous contract, covering 2001-04. The contract was negotiated before 9/11 and then not funded by the legislature, who to be fair were facing some fiscal problems around then. (Swift’s stalling was responsible for it not going to the legislature before 9/11. Does anyone remember which governor appointed Bill Weld’s driver to be head of security at Logan?)
<
p>
Romney’s justification for the veto was that the money was a “retroactive pay raise” and thus somehow unjustified, although it was retroactive only because the state defaulted on its original obligation. The legislature, with some helpful added motivation from the MTA, has been pretty straightforward about promising to eventually fulfill the contract and has now (despite Romney’s attempted interference) finally done so.
<
p>
What this means for the future is that when we recruit new faculty (and there is a credible plan to boost UMass Amherst’s faculty by 250) we don’t have to tell candidates that the current faculty are owed back pay from five years ago.
<
p>
This is apparently what Romney (and all the last sixteen years of GOP governors) mean by “support for higher education”.
I called the clerk’s office today. They say all the override votes are over and done with, the veto of Chapter 40T of section 41 of H 5057 was not overriden.
<
p>
I don’t know if that means the Senate didn’t vote on it at all, or did vote and sustained the veto.
that it never came up, which probably means that leadership concluded they didn’t have the votes. Good.