Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Calling out Mav, Greencape, David – follow the money…plus bonus Howie C.

By

Late-breaking bonus: if Howie’s scheme works, we’ll have more $$ to spend! 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. 1: cut income tax to 5%
    2: health care reform
    3: aid to cities and towns
    4: roads
    5: environment
    6: pension reform (Brookline is underfunded by $120M?! That’s simply stealing from the next generation!)
    7: K-12
    8: higher education
    9: stem cell research

    <

    p>
    did I win?

  2. on behalf of DP –

    <

    p>
    1. Economic Growth, New Jobs, Affordable Housing
    2. Aid to cities and towns
    3. K-12
    4. Health care reform
    5. Higher Ed
    6. Environment
    7. Roads
    8. Stem Cell Research
    25. Cut income tax rate to 5%

    • Eury, you’re always invited. 

      <

      p>
      One guy on the right and one on the left – both agree that stem cell research is a low priority….

      <

      p>
      Tom Finneran won’t be happy. 

      <

      p>
      And I thought Gabs was onto something…with his $1 billion plan….

      <

      p>
      That is, I thought this was the most plausible way to job creation….remind me of the other ways MA will do this? 

      • A straight-up top-ten list (or top 8-ish, in this case) is a gross oversimplification of everything.

        <

        p>
        I put stem cells behind education, and if I hadn’t, then I’d be asked why Deval would rather kill unborn children than educate the living ones? Why does Deval hate us so?

        <

        p>
        Meanwhile Gary puts ed behind roads for Reilly. Does that mean that Reilly also hates children?

        <

        p>
        So, GGW, let’s see your BEST guess for Gabs’ priorities, in order, 1-8.

        • i was pleased you made choices, eury.  i found one thing interesting, that only gabs is big into the stem cell thing.  based on the sample of 2 guys, you and gary, perhaps that doesn’t issue have much traction, that’s all.  i think people hear it as “research” and i hear it equally as “jobs.” 

          <

          p>
          i don’t yet have a very good guess on how gabs would answer the question, but i’ll try to answer it tomorrow night.  i’m going to an event for him and it’ll be the first time i’ve seen him in a Q and A mode. 

          <

          p>
          i’m between reilly and gabs right now.  leaning gabs, i guess.  i think i’d be with deval (and have done work for one of his committees) but for his K-12 views.

          <

          p>
          i looked at gabs’ website, and based on a cursory reading, my guess is:

          <

          p>
          1. K-12
          2. Stem Cell Research
          3. Cut income tax rate to 5% based on certain economic triggers
          4. Aid to cities and towns through gambling income
          5. Health care reform
          6. Higher Ed
          7. Environment
          8. Roads

          <

          p>

          • Deval’s education platform seems pretty good to me: – Expand Early Education Opportunities
            – Extend the School Day
            – Reduce Class Size
            – Coordinate After-School Programs
            – Support Charter Schools (but in such a way as to not take funding from regular schools)
            – Support High Quality Teaching
            – Provide Adequate Resources for Schools
            – Improve Assessment Tools
            – Close the Achievement Gaps
            – Reinvest in Public Higher Education
            (taken from the above linked page)

            <

            p>
            What would you prefer he do or not do?

            <

            p>
            Regarding stem cells, I agree that it’s a jobs issue as well as a health issue, and that’s why lists like these are deceptive. If DP (or any candidate) were putting together a comprehensive proposal for job creation, they’d probably include both stem cell research and the environment (R&D of alternative energy) as possible sectors to pursue.

            <

            p>
            In fact, in DP’s economy platform, the following is the second bullet point (right after investing in renewable energy):

            Support for Stem Cell Research. We will issue bonds to invest in expansion and development of stem cell research. Proceeds from the bonds will be invested in research facilities and faculty development in the public universities to stimulate their expansion.

            <

            p>
            I certainly appreciate that Gabrieli has put forth his Stem Cell proposal, much in the same way that I was impressed with Reilly’s higher ed. proposal. But I’m supporting DP because aside from agreeing with his specific issue positions, I respond well to his overall theme and message, which is that we as a State can do better. I’m confident that he will be able to lead us there.

            • Fair question.

              <

              p>
              1. DP was for teacher merit pay before he was against it.  For me, it’s less of a big deal as an issue – I am curious about mega merit pay, pushing total comp to $100k per year for the best, but $3k per year is such small potatoes, not worth it – and more of a signal of the debt he feels to the union.  He had a view and then reversed it a day before union announced endorsement.

              <

              p>
              This is where David’s defense of the “BMG editor endorsement” ran silly – the notion that DP would somehow be the most “independent” of the three. 

              <

              p>
              2. Charters (disclosure: I’m in the tank on this issue, so you can discount as needed)

              <

              p>
              I agree with a line from one of the debates – Given all the conditions attached to DP’s “support” of charters, his stand is tantamount to opposing them. 

              <

              p>
              Most folks on his ed advisory committee are strongly and vocally anti-charter. 
              He uses the EXACT same language as charter opponents do (after they realized that charters poll through the roof, something like 55 to 20).  Instead of “I’m against” it’s “I support but.” 

              <

              p>
              But we should adopt the poison-pill new funding formula that the superintendents are pushing for.  We should block new charters until that’s in place. 

              <

              p>
              But we should block charter growth even in the lowest 5% of MA districts, where waiting lists are huge and charter performance is high. 

              <

              p>
              But we should somehow punish charters when their innovations aren’t adopted by traditional schools. 

              <

              p>

              Gabrieli identified the obvious weakness in Patrick’s stand. “I don’t think the burden of spreading innovation from charter schools to district schools ought to be put on the charter schools,” he said, noting that while most charters have a longer school day, his own efforts to get the traditional public schools to adopt a longer day have met with resistance. 

              <

              p>
              Realistically, charters have only survived b/c of Gov’s vetoes in the past several years.  If elected, I predict we’ll see a moratorium on new charters and a significant “charter-only” funding cut by Spring 2008.  Both have come close to passing in past sessions. 

              <

              p>
              3. My sense is that DP has a go-along, get-along approach with the teachers unions….it’s their agenda.  Smaller classes (bigger union).  More early ed (bigger union).  After-school (teacher overtime…in most contracts, that kicks in after a 6.5 hour day).

              <

              p>
              I read the tea leaves this way: “Teachers will have the support, compensation and professional development to enhance their performance and job satisfaction, and administrators will have the tools, training and authority to be accountable for performance at their schools.”

              <

              p>
              Notice the word “accountability” for administrators and not teachers. 

              <

              p>
              Bottom line: I deeply believe that the only plausible chance to close the Achievement Gap is through huge and sometimes painful change.  I wish it were otherwise.  The Gap is a very powerful force, not influenced by 10% or 20% or 80% more money.  If you read old Clinton speeches on education, you’ll realize that DP’s language is mostly a repudiation of his former boss: yes to the easy parts (class size, etc), no to the cod liver oil. 

              <

              p>
              I believe that on K-12, Gabrieli wants to pick the fights that could – could – drive big change and help kids…even if it annoys some adults.  Whether he has the political dexterity to actually win those fights, however, perhaps that’s where I’m most skeptical.

              • I see where you’re coming from, and it certainly could be argued that DP is too beholden to the teachers’ unions.

                <

                p>
                Personally, I find myself agreeing with much of their agendas, and I’m not seeking any endorsements. The one area that I think the unions get in the way is the issue of tenure and the ability to clean house if a teacher isn’t doing the job well.

                <

                p>
                I was fortunate enough to be able to go to a great private school as a kid, and the teachers there were given a lot of freedom to do their jobs. They were smart, passionate, and dedicated, and that’s why I got the education that I did. And I don’t think they were paid significantly more than public school teachers in the area.

                <

                p>
                So I’m of the mind that one of the best ways to improve education is to get the right teachers in the classroom and let them do their jobs.

                • teacher quality is the #1 issue. 

                  <

                  p>
                  i think the reason that charters in boston outperform not just district schools, but pilot schools, by a wide margin is that they do part of what you say – cherrypick smart, passionate, and dedicated teachers (not kids, as per accusations).  many of the best teachers are in traditional schools, but charters are able to screen out more of the deadweight. 

                  <

                  p>
                  but where you say “let” teachers do their jobs, i’d say “help” them do their jobs.  in professions from sports, theater, stem cell research, medicine, to law, it’s not considered anti-professional to coach people. 

                  <

                  p>
                  i certainly agree that there is much bad education leadership, and in those places your “let them teach” paradigm is better than bad coaching. 

                  <

                  p>
                  but there is certainly such a thing as good leadership, and i’d say you’ll see it in any high-poverty, open admissions school where kids are doing well. 

                  <

                  p>
                  usually the key is that teachers need a chance to succeed, and that means decorum and student effort, and that can’t be easily done on a teacher-by-teacher basis – not every teacher can replicate the Jaime Escalante story. 

                  <

                  p>
                  it’s a lot easier if teachers all row in the same direction, with the principal willing to lead by example and put in 80-hour weeks.  in bad schools the principal talks a good game, hides in his office, and teachers are expected to singlehandedly carry the load. 

          • Regarding stem cells as a job issue, I’d like to respectfully disagree.  Therapeutic use of stem cells means understanding cell differentiation and that looks like the work of a generation of scientists, not a 5 year project at Genzyme.

            <

            p>
            If you want to create good jobs in Massachusetts, where employees pump money back into the local economy you would be better off using state funds to send more people to college, especially in engineering and business. After the ten years of investment that Gabrielli is talking about, kids who entered college at the beginning of the program will be 28.  The 28 year olds at EMC and Fidelity are buying cars, renovating houses, and eating $100/plate dinners. The 28 year olds doing research are in the middle of their post-doc and/or residency, living three to an apartment and eating free pizza at departmental seminars.

            <

            p>
            It’s not that I don’t like Gabrielli’s proposal.  I think it’s great that someone is talking about plowing that much money into basic research and I think if it goes forward and the money is spread around there will be payoffs down the line. But ten years ago, liposomal gene delivery was going to eradicate genetic diseases.  And five years ago angiogenesis blockers were going to stop cancer in its tracks. There’s many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip and many more from bench to bedside.  Gabrielli’s proposal is a bold suggestion that may well open up new avenues for entrepreneurs and spur job creation – but it might not do that for 20 years.  I think it’s a fascinating proposal that deserves more discussion.  But to characterize it as a jobs program is probably going to lead to disappointment.

            • Thanks for the thoughtful post.

              <

              p>
              1. Your narrow point – basic research doesn’t generate immediate job creation – is valid. 

              <

              p>
              I think the reason Mass Biotech Council disagrees with your larger point is that they see it one of a few policies that lead to significant industry growth here.  They see it as: how does MA compete versus, say, CA and NC to land the next Novartis R&D site?  And if we can land more of those, then perhaps we can land more pharma manufacturing, because there is some advantage to having scientists nearby.  And can we HQ the next Biogen? 

              <

              p>
              Ten-year job creation is not going to come from stem cell research itself, of course; it’s going to come from attracting start-ups; attracting Fortune 500 biotech; and retention of growing firms we already have. 

              <

              p>
              Gabs’ proposal is one plank in a larger strategy.  We have MIT/Harvard; Mass General et al; VC.  Our natural advantage can be better leveraged. 

              <

              p>
              2. I agree sending more kids to graduate with science/tech/eng/math (stem) degrees from state colleges would be huge for us. 

              <

              p>
              I’d suggest, however, that Stanford’s Michael Kirst has shown tuition is (counterintuitively) not usually the issue here.  Low academic skills are. 

              • so long as we’re far afield of the original post – budget priorities – and onto stem cells, check out this very interesting blog post (and comments) about the time frame from major advances in cancer et al.

                <

                p>
                it’s from a guy named derek lowe.  obviously not our long lost sinkerball pitcher….

              • Since this diary is now comfortably off the main page I hope you don’t mind if I threadjack it a little farther đŸ˜‰

                <

                p>
                Having taken a look at some of your cites, I can say I’ve changed my mind about Gabrielli’s proposal.  Originally I thought it was too much and now I think it’s not enough.

                <

                p>
                To talk about spending $1b, even over 10 years, in the rather narrow field of stem cell research won’t give a reasonable return on investment as a job creation program.  But as you point out, there is bigger game afoot.  Massachusetts does have a natural advantage in biotech, broadly defined, which has grown somewhat haphazardly out of the concentration of first-rate research institutions in the area into a complex of university research, start-ups, and major drug companies.  The universities supply ideas and skilled workers to the startups and Big Pharmas. In turn, the companies provide jobs for graduates and sometimes research partnerships. The quality of education in the state system is a recursive element in this complex – as people come out of college better prepared for doing real work  (not just better at taking tests) the companies do better.  As the companies are more succesful, they can absorb more graduates and they strengthen the tax base used to fund state education.

                <

                p>
                While this complex has grown naturally, it is time to start thinking about how to manage it instead of just letting it evolve.  Republicans will shriek in horror at the idea of a government actually touching their precious industry, but it’s clear that neglect, benign or otherwise, is no longer an option. The complex is too important to the economic health of Massachusetts to ignore and other regions, both nationally and internationally, are already making concerted effors to grab a piece of it. California has legislated $3b in funds for research and Taiwan has spent $1b since 2000.  Looking at numbers like these is why I’m starting to think Gabrielli’s plan is only a good start. 

                <

                p>
                There’s more to maintaining this complex than just spending money, though. There needs to be a clear legal and regulatory framework in place so researchers can investigate and companies can invest without fear that 5 years of work may suddenly go up in smoke. For example, while the wisdom of putting a level 4 biohazard facility in the middle of Boston ought to be openly debated, the process shouldn’t be stopped after the permits are issued.  At the same time, there’s no point in having a research-industrial complex like this if the cost is tax-free giveaways to the companies.  Too often in the last 20 years companies have been able to blackmail states into carving out exemptions that keep needed tax dollars away from the very educational and infrastructure systems that the companies depend on.

                <

                p>
                Gabrielli’s proposal is a decent starting point, and it deserves more discussion, more than anybody’s given it yet.  As you’ve pointed out, there are a number of interconnected areas (education, infrastructure, local aid mechanisms, and the legal/regulatory environment) that all are tangled up with the research-industrial complex.  To bring it full circle, perhaps it’s this tangle that keeps “stem cell research” from having a higher public priority.

            • also, see the cover story of today’s NYT business section – essentially how singapore is doing precisely the stem cell route in order to lure big pharma. 

Archives