Ginny Buckingham, the Herald’s Republican-est columnist, has been assessing the field of Gov candidates lately, with some interesting results. She thinks that the Healey backers who are hoping and praying for Deval Patrick to win the Democratic primary had better be careful what they wish for.
So if Patricks the guy, it shouldnt be too hard to convince voters that hell be to the Democratic Legislature what kerosene is to fire, an accelerant for their tax and spend inclinations, right? Thus, Healeys rationale for election – that the checks and balances in place with a Republican in the Corner Office for the last 16 years are worth keeping – works against Patrick.
Or does it? Can Healey really out-outside the ultimate outsider?
Look at the basic facts. Patricks from Chicago, not Boston. Hes never run for nor held office here. His career as a Justice Department, and then corporate, lawyer for big-time national firms like Coca-Cola also says, not made in Massachusetts and lets face it, theres nothing about the guy that says good ol boy.
So it comes down to the fact that Patricks got a D after his name. Last time I checked, in Massachusetts thats a plus, not a minus.
Buckingham, in other words, thinks (correctly, IMHO) that running against the legislature will be tough against Patrick, since Patrick himself has already shown independence from the legislature, and there’s no obvious way to tie him to the Sal & Trav show. She concludes that Healey still has a shot at beating Patrick on the tax rollback issue. But that single issue, important as it is, is an awful lot to stake Healey’s entire campaign on. No one really knows how much resonance that issue, such a big deal a few years ago, will carry today. I’m still worried about it, but it’s a big question mark.
Christy Mihos, on the other hand, is toast in Buckingham’s view.
I suggest Mihos is coming perilously close to, at best, being a nuisance on the campaign as one opposing camp said yesterday or, at worst, making a total fool of himself….
Where are the crumpled dollars and spare change one might expect to come to an insurgent candidacy? Remember, in April, Mihos said hed put in a dollar for every dollar donated under his Proposition $1 million plan? It hasnt happened.
In an independent campaign, it comes real late, Mihos said yesterday.
OK, Christy, but dont be surprised if you try to climb into your gubernatorial coach and find it already has turned into a pumpkin….
[Mihos’ ad guy Bill] Hillsman cautioned me that I had to get out of the Democratic/GOP paradigm when assessing Mihos chances. He also said he runs thrifty campaigns, using a little bit of paid media to generate earned media.
OK, but its hard to see how the Mihos campaign could have ignored the opportunity to drive home his core message with a TV ad after the Big Dig disaster.
Another campaigns poll [Healey’s –ed.] shows Mihos in single digits (he claims hes at least in the high teens) and opportunities like that come around only once. He blew it, but maybe thats because he doesnt have the money to blow after all.
Indeed. The one issue Mihos actually has both credibility and some public profile on is the Big Dig. And sure, he waved his arms at reporters a couple of times after the CA/Tastrophe, but that was about it. Talk about a missed opportunity for Christy.
But he’s a threat to cost Healey the corner office, not to win it himself.
<
p>
The state GOP needs votes from Independents who won’t vote for the Democrat. If that vote is split, even by a small (say 5%) margin, Healey can’t win.
The two examples you provided of Patrick showing his supposed independence from the legislature aren’t all that convincing. The pension is issue was pretty cut and dry — follow the law. As for the Governor appointing someone to Turnpike Authority, well, that’s a step in the right direction, but again no great streak of rebelion.
<
p>
I have to wonder whether Patrick’s views on following the law and having the Governor appoint department heads would apply to the Department of Early Education and Care? The current chapter 15D specifically exempts board members from certain ethics violations. The recently vetoed “universal pre-school” legislation (HB4755) goes further and gives control of the commissioner appointment to the board which would be comprised exclusively of “insiders”. Patrick has been such a strong supporter of the early education and the teacher unions, I think he would pass this right through!
<
p>
I don’t see Patrick as an outsider at all. When I first heard him speak, well before he announced his candidacy his views were moderate. But he’s morphed into a socialist, not a democrat, and that is why he will easily be trounced by Healey.
this comment makes no sense. “Follow the law” on Ruane? What is that supposed to mean? The legislature changed the law. Patrick and Reilly, to their credit, said it was a bad idea. (Gabrieli, in a weak move, did not.) Same on Amorello: the legislature tried to change the law. Patrick correctly said it was a bad idea; I don’t recall whether Reilly or Gabrieli took a position.
<
p>
I have no idea where Patrick is on HB 4755. Why don’t you ask him?
<
p>
And a “socialist”? That’s just silly. What is your evidence for saying that?
…of changing your mind. Nor is that my intent. Up until March/April I was strongly in Patrick’s camp, so as much as you must be pleased by his evolution, I am not. Regardless, I thank you for the courteous reply and will try my best to clarify.
<
p>
Of Ruane, Patrick referred to the legislative action as “judgments outside the process and changing the rules for special cases”. You cannot change rules that don’t already exist. Perhaps my use of using “rules” and “laws” interchangeably was incorrect, but it doesn’t detract from my point. It was not a profoundly independent act. It was the political equivalent of saying you can’t tag someone whose on ghouls. An independent act would be push for public pension reform.
<
p>
As for HB4755, on Patrick’s website (yes, the one with the movie clip touting that he has support of teacher unions — big surprise there) he states: I will expand education opportunities for 3- and 4-year-olds, specifically, by working to pass pending legislation that addresses this need. I will also ensure that free, full-day Kindergarten programs are available for all 5-year-olds in Massachusetts.
<
p>
Well, that “pending legislation” is HB4755. Currently, we have a variety of private enterprises which offer child care, both pre-school and school aged programs. If we conceive of education as a product, then by putting private programs under the control of the state, you have created a socialist system for providing that product. I think the effect will be less competition, lower quality, and union control of yet another segment of childrearing. HB4755 is full of good intentions, but it is a terrible policy.
I still don’t understand your point on Ruane. Of course there are “rules” on pensions – that was why they passed the bill, because Mr. Ruane was not eligible to participate under existing rules. They changed them to help him out. So I continue to disagree with you on that one.
<
p>
As for HB4755, I know exactly nothing about this bll. However, I will say this: if you think that the state has no role in regulating “private programs” that care for three year olds, I’m guessing that most parents would disagree with you. Do you really want a completely unregulated market in child care? Shouldn’t there be at least some oversight so that we haven’t got pedophiles running the programs?
<
p>
Maybe the bill goes further by actually having the state take over operation of these “private programs.” I don’t know – does it? Or is it more about oversight?
You can see the bill here: http://www.mass.gov/…
<
p>
Child care centers have required licenses as long back as I can remember. Staff already needs to undergo a CORI, for what that’s worth. Those things haven’t changed, and in fact, in Romney’s veto, he specified acceptance of those sorts of technical details that gave that level of oversight to the newly formed EEC department.
<
p>
From a slide presentation on the EEC website, I found that the state has already spent over $4.5 million dollars outfitting about 60% of child care centers with a computer so that they can submit state reports. The bill specifies that these reports are going to be a requirement of keeping one’s license. Additionally, the board of overseers will approve a set of standards of emotional, social, cognitive development for children birth thru K. They will devise a curriculum of sorts against which students will be tested and child care centers will be assessed.
<
p>
A voucher program and sliding fee scale will be created. What is now a predominantly private industry, albeit regulated, will be further subsidized by tax dollars. Simultaneously, there is a charge to set up credentialing standards, professional development programs, and board oversight of compensation. This, in my opinion, goes beyond regulation for the safety and well-being of children and moves into controlling of the private market.
<
p>
What I predict will happen is that the regulatory burden will force out small child care centers, especially those run out of the home. We will see a reduction in choice, an increase in prices, and an expansion of programs associated with the public schools because those will have statuatory exemption from the EEC. When that happens, we will see a unionized labor force in the early education sector, and I don’t think that will be for the benefit of children.
<
p>
I don’t disagree with the intent of providing access to quality child care for low income families. But this bill is flawed. When Patrick added this to his website, I felt he had sold out, stopped thinking, and he lost my support then and there.
Interesting stuff. But honestly, the notion that this is “socialism” is not correct. For example, you seem concerned about the voucher/sliding scale issue. Is that a means of partially subsidizing the cost of child care for poor families? If so, it’s tough to argue with, no?
<
p>
As for the union issue, seems to me your prediction is several steps removed from what the bill actually does.
<
p>
Does greater regulatory oversight sometimes make it tough for small providers to survive? No doubt. But that is not socialism. Protecting kids through state oversight of child care providers and allowing the market to flourish unimpeded isn’t an easy balance to strike in an area like this, but don’t call it what it’s not. Your argument will be far more persuasive if you don’t misuse loaded terms.
Enjoy your stay with us.
<
p>
Perhaps you didn’t know that this is a reality-based site. Many of us, I’m sure, are curious about your evidence for your assertion about Patrick’s morphing. Even the strongest Reilly and Gabrieli supporters haven’t made this kind of statement.
<
p>
Thanks for sharing.
<
p>
Hmmm…. I’m not sure I recall too many socialists getting panned for their alleged corporate thuggery.
<
p>
Now, if Deval had called for the nationalization of Texaco or Coca-Cola or UAL, you might be on to something.