So we’ve been talking a lot about taxes, politics, and public investment here. It might be interesting to bring up the case of Mark Warner, former Dem governor of Virginia who pushed through a tax increase to invest in public infrastructure, among other things, and left office with sky-high approval ratings, in an ostensibly anti-tax “red” state. Fancy that. For that, he shared Governing Magazine’s 2004 Official of the Year award with the VA Senate Majority Leader.
A key factor was that Warner apparently spent a lot of time trying to make government more efficient:
Having cut spending and streamlined government operations, Warner was then in a position to make the case that the state simply had to raise more money if it wanted to remain solvent. “If you’re going to go out and ask people for more revenues, you have to have rock-solid credentials,” he says. “You’ve got to show the taxpayer that you’re going to squeeze every dollar and efficiency before you ask for more.
Isn’t that just a consensus, cross-partisan viewpoint? Does anyone, liberal or conservative, want to see her tax money wasted?
Now, here’s the hard part: Are there any elected officials who don’t want to reward the people who helped them get their jobs? Is there anyone who can resist the urge to build a power base from easy patronage and favors?
The standard Democratic message — which Republicans have adopted as well — is pro-public investment: Spend on education, public safety, health care, and infrastructure, and the economy thrives and everyone benefits. This is generally the consensus position; after all, George W. Bush claimed this political ground as governor of Texas and in 2000. It was the basis of the original (fully-funded) No Child Left Behind.
But I’m afraid that in Massachusetts, the argument for public capitalization just got even more difficult, as if it wasn’t already. David Luberoff of Harvard’s Rappaport Institute has been a skeptic of large public projects like the Green Line expansion. All things being equal, I’d be completely on the other side. But in the context of the Big Dig, his skepticism is well-placed:
Why would the project’s overseers underemphasize safety concerns? Because they fell victim to one of the iron laws of project management: “Fast, good, or cheap? Pick two.”
… So the project’s managers increasingly focused on “cheap” and “fast” and didn’t worry as much about whether the project was “good.”
… This culture has to be fixed before we move forward not only with the Big Dig but with billions of dollars of other proposed highway and transit projects as well.
So when it comes to public investment in infrastructure, the public’s faith is pretty much nil. The Big Dig has killed that. But what’s the alternative? More bad concrete? More broken axles? Deterioration? More of the same?
Every candidate in the gubernatorial race is going to need a very aggressive, adversarial message against the Big Dig culture of Beacon Hill.* They need to credibly demonstrate that are willing and able to piss off entrenched interests, and to bring a big stick to the game of Accountability Whack-A-Mole. The governor taking over the investigation from the Turnpike head is a good start; an independent, special-prosecutor style investigation would be even better; an absolutely rock-solid, incorruptible, disinterested, bad-ass, Joe-Friday-meets-JAG Inspector General of Public Works would be best of all.
Naturally, Massachusetts effectively has no recent history of that, so why would people believe it would work? On the other hand, we’ve tried everything besides doing the honest, non-conflicted thing; how about doing it right for a change?
Update: Where the hell has everyone been for 20 years?
Another update: Ugh, ugh, ugh.
I couldn’t agree with you more. I think Mark Warner is another excellent example of a competent leader and manager who did the right thing and gained in popularity because of it — in a red state no less.
Love Warner. Disclosure: volunteer for his campaign.
<
p>
Warner cut 3000 state jobs. First. Over a couple years. Everything got hit except K-12. One big area was I.T. consolidation (as Charley’s article), since that was in Warner’s wheelhouse. (Gabs closest thing).
<
p>
The cuts gave him not just credibility with public, but with the Republican Senate leader, Chichester. (Unclear Sal or Trav could/would respect a hard-hitting gov).
<
p>
Then came tax increases. Not for a big health care deal or new schoolhouses. To get structural deficit solved. Now it’s solved. Their economy positioned to grow faster than ours.
<
p>
Agree with Lolorb: Lesson 1 is sometimes when you do the right thing it pays off. Lesson 2, alas, is you need a partner in Legislature.
<
p>
Did you notice we’re agreeing with each other? OMG! I guess the moral of the story is that we all share common ground.
<
p>
đŸ˜®
<
p>
I perceive D’s in MA as a combination of Barrios (nanny state, loves regulation), O’Brien (the hackocracy), and Reich (super-smart guy who nonetheless always wants to spend, spend, spend). So at first I identified the “Blue” in BMG as D’s who largely think like them.
<
p>
But that’s not the case. Those folks are here, but there are a lot of moderate Dems and Independents here. There’s a lot of evidence-based discussion, too. I’ll give credit to Bob, Charley, and David for keeping it real(ity).
<
p>
2. Now obviously my description above is pejorative – those three would perceive themselves as “caring about kids struggling with obesity,” “hiring loyal and productive people in jobs for which they are well qualified,” and “wanting to invest in the futures of our children, at a time where our economy is undergoing dramatic change.”
<
p>
That’s cool. Perhaps BMG should almost have two types of comment threads. One allows debate over basic ideals – I’m for tax cut, you’re against it, etc.
<
p>
The other would allow for nuanced follow-up among those who generally have same position and are open to persuasion on the details. Not sure how that would work, though.
It wasn’t really “across the board”. NOVA — which is much more dense in population and logs lots of highway miles — was really struggling with traffic jams. The people of NOVA seemed very willing to pay more taxes for more highway lanes. The rest of VA wanted nothing to do with it, sensing (correctly) that they’d get little of that highway fund.
<
p>
So, Warner proposed a half-cent tax increase for NOVA and Hampton Roads, with the money going in to roads. It failed, miserably. Public opinion polls suggested that VAns didn’t trust government spending.
<
p>
Then, two things happened.
1. Warner cut 1800 jobs and allowed the state universities to raise their tuition a good bit.
2. The GOP led Senate proposed $4B in tax increases, far higher than Warners’ tax increase proposal.
<
p>
The conservative VA House balked, but eventually about 17 GOPers moved to Warner’s side RE the tax increase, and got it passed.
<
p>
Then: road construction, improved economy, people felt good. Since VA doesn’t allow a governor to run for re-election, Warner’s protege Tim Kaine got elected.
<
p>
Is VA turning blue? It depends on where you look. NOVA is turning more blue, and if the Dems can figure out how to get the Beltway Dems and the black Dems on the coast to both vote in the same elections, they could really make state gains. However, Charlottesville and all points west seem to remain very red. Guns, gays, and God still dominate politics on the western part of the state, and even though Dems — particularly Southern Dems — have given up the fight on guns and don’t really push for equal rights legislation for gays, they still get pigeon (or corn?)holed by the so-called Religious Right.
<
p>
Warner’s good stuff, but it remains to be seen if he worked his mojo in VA or if he was merely in the right place at the right time.
Really. Are you dreaming?
<
p>
<
p>
You’re right about skepticism here in MA. Spending more on large projects will be exceedingly hard to do. The Big Dig fiasco will haunt public works proposals for many decades.
<
p>
How about Warner running for governor in MA?