Senator Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge) has published a “guest commentary” at SHNS (thoughtfully reprinted by Kim for non-subscribers) offering his list of the top ten challenges facing the new administration and legislature.
It’s pretty funny, some of it. Like this gem, in which he apparently tries to show that legislators actually have more support than the Governor-elect, so Mr. Fancy-pants Governor had better listen up when legislators want their earmarks:
The fact that the Governor and Legislature are from the same party suggests the prospects of greater harmony than the degree experienced in the last four years, but it doesn’t mean that there will be universal agreement on every issue. Most legislators received more votes than the Patrick/Murray ticket in their districts, and they will express their views as independently elected representatives of their regions despite sharing a common partisan identity with the chief executive.
Um, Senator, that’s because most of you ran unopposed. That’s a bad thing, not something to brag about. He goes on to justify pork-barrel politics:
The new Governor, like many of his predecessors, says he doesn’t like the Legislature to earmark funds form specific projects, yet legislators believe that these projects are important to their regions or to the Commonwealth as a whole. If an executive administration is unresponsive to the needs of various legislative districts, interested parties press their senators and representatives to address the matters through the budget.
Ah. So really, the pork problem is the Governor’s fault — legislators actually have no control over it, since their only job is to do the bidding of “interested parties.” Oh PUH-LEEEEZ.
Anyway, here’s the real keeper from Moore’s top ten list:
9. Same Sex Marriage. The issue may be gaining some level of public acceptance, but it will not go away without giving the voters an opportunity to agree or disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion. At the same time, same sex relationships should be permitted to share health and life insurance, inheritance of property and assets, joint ownership of property, hospital visitation, etc.
This from the guy who made the motion to consign another initiative amendment — the health care amendment — to a “study committee,” knowing full well that doing so was tantamount to killing it. Pardon me, Senator, but your call to “let the people vote” rings particularly hollow in light of your action on the health care amendment.
“I can take care of my enemies; it’s my goddamn friends that are killing me!” – Pres. Warren Harding, during the Teapot Dome Scandal.
<
p>
I concur that it is the height of hypocricy for the Senator to make this argument, even if it is a correct one.
<
p>
Health care should go to the voters as well.
who just alerted me to the Sunday Globe column Nov 26 by Sam Allis, page A3, about this very issue. Its title is Giving process its due
<
p>
<
p>
Mr. Allis provides an important public service by giving voice to this highly charged civic issue but it’s too bad he gets one BIG FACT WRONG. He states that it takes only one ConCon vote of 50 leges to place an amendment on the ballot. That’s wrong. By now, I hope BMG’ers know that it requires 2 ConCon votes in consecutive legislative sessions (and each session is 2-years in MA) to advance a citizen initiative amendment to the ballot. I’ll email Mr. Allis to say thank you and to offer a gentle correction on the process details.
I thought it was my job to over analyze and have a chip on my shoulder.
you’re the cranky curmudgeon who keeps us damn fool libruls in their place. đŸ˜‰
<
p>
And I’m pretty sure, he knows, at this point, there aren’t enough votes for the healthcare amendment and probably wouldn’t object to a vote.
Pray tell, gary, what insider information do you have that leads you to make such a statement:
<
p>
“And I’m pretty sure, he knows, at this point, there aren’t enough votes for the healthcare amendment and probably wouldn’t object to a vote.”
<
p>
Because the HC Amendment folks believe that there are enough (50 or more) legislators who were among the 153 YES votes in July 04 that will still vote YES on it now to place it on the next statewide ballot.
<
p>
If gary is privvy to insider information that he alludes to, then I guess it follows that Mr Moore should report back the “study findings” to the Jan 2 ConCon and make a motion for the HC Amendment to get its 2nd DUE VOTE up or down on its merits on Jan 2.
<
p>
Right?
I would be astonished if the health care amendment were to come to a vote and fail to get 50 “yes” votes, and I think a whole lot of other people would be too. IMHO, the only thing keeping this amendment from the ballot is procedural maneuvers.
I bet there aren’t really 153 supporters of it. But it looks real bad to vote against health care rights. Even the ones that support universal health care probably don’t really want to add a healthcare mandate to their job description. They’re miffed that the voters think they can instruct them. But it looks bad to admit that, so they took cover with bogus yes votes knowing that the marriage amendment was going to give them this option.
<
p>
One part of the amendment process that needs fixing is the concon agenda thing. Why can’t they just debate and vote on each proposal seperately over the course of the year, like, within a year of the bill being filed? They have email now, they have blogs, they don’t need to all get together as if they ride in from Northampton on horseback. Did you know that used to take two days to do?
This process was set up by progressive reformers, who were disgusted with an unresponsive Legislature who would not act upon bills. They hit upon the petition system to force them to act.
<
p>
the only thing they did wrong, IMHO, is that they failed to add a provision that any legislator who votes to adjourn or recess without taking a final vote loses their seat, and forfeits the right to run ofr reelection. the SJC keeps whining that thye have no enforcemnt powers, and there’s no penalty in the article.
<
p>
It is sad that these progressives didn’t realize that 90 years hence, the Legislature would flout the written law with impunity, and pat themselves on the back for doing so, while retaining all priviledges. If they’re such little Thoreaus, then let them go to jail for their civil disobedience like he did!
Why don’t we change the constitution (well, you know) so that we don’t have these agenda issues, and one amendment proposal won’t get in the way of another? Why should we have these inefficient concons? It’s just an affectation at this point, they may as well all put powdered wigs on. They should be able to vote on each amendment seperately, and not have to do it all in one day, with all this grandstanding and people chanting outside. This is just silly. Why not let them grandstand on their blogs and connive in emails for a year, with us offering our own expert opinions on our blogs too, and then they can reach their final position on each issue one at a time. And citizen initiatives should automatically go to the ballot unless 75% of the leg agrees that it has no merit, with two chances to vote it down over two years.
I have no insider info. I do know, from several conversations, that there is a wide opinion within the Senate and House that the April Healthcare compromise killed the Amendment, and depending on the sting of the leadership whip, a number of yes votes would reverse.
<
p>
To get the Healthcare vote, they have to get through the Marriage vote. So just from a Bayes prospective, the amendment’s success probability seriously dropped when the Leg recessed in 2006.
<
p>
It should get the vote, up or down, no question.
The culture of entitlement that infects many of the incumbents on Beacon Hill is one of the primary things holding Massachusetts back. This is the legislature that has us bleeding jobs and paying billions into the hack-managed CA/Tastrophe. We need a government that works for all the people, not just the pork-meisters and their relatives and friends.
Unitarians believe God made us all equal individuals, and believe that gays should be married if they choose. Other people think that being gay is a sin. Until I see some evidence of social harm strong enough to stand up in a court of law, I am inclined to believe that by allowing a vote on this anti-gay marriage ammendment, we are voting a religious belief into law. That’s why I don’t think this shouldn’t be given to the people to decide. Beliefs cannot be legislated in a free country, and they are never up for popular vote.
<
p>
I have heard many people say that they feel their religion is under attack, but I have seen no proof. All people have their freedom. That freedom ends where someone else’s freedom begins. Gay marriage is an option for those who wish to pursue it, and in no way compromises someone else’s liberties who do not wish to partake. Taking away that freedom demmands a sterling explanation that has never materialized. Until then this will be an issue of on group’s desire to inflict it’s will upon an unwilling second group based solely on their religion.
I agree with the substance of David’s criticism of Sen. Moore on same-sex marriage, but I actually found most of the Senator’s commentary to be a pretty thoughtful assessment of what the incoming Governor and legislature face in January.
<
p>
I think it’s important to keep in mind that Sen. Moore represents one of the more conservative districts in Massachusetts – my office is in that district – and I think he runs a bit to the left of his district. I don’t see him as a DINO, but rather as a thoughtful moderate who shouldn’t be marginalized.
<
p>
I don’t see Moore justifying pork-barrel politics – or blaming the Governor for it. I think that he’s asserting the prerogatives of the legislative branch in the face of a landslide victory by Governor-elect Patrick.
Just curious, when have you witnessed vision and leadership on the part of the state senator? I hope I have missed something, because I see caution ruling every step he has taken. Sort of like a kid sneaking a peek at the other kids papers during a test, before answering the question. There are other “conservative” districts with progressive legislators that have moved the districts forward. I just don’t see leadership….moderate and safe.
call it what you will. But to me, “asserting the prerogatives of the legislative branch” by trying to explain how important it is that legislators not be impeded in their quest to secure earmarks — despite a landslide victory by a Governor who campaigned on trying to clean up that way of governing — is an effort to justify pork, plain and simple. It’s a guy who likes the old ways of doing business daring the new Governor to make them change. Here’s hoping the new Governor takes the dare. I bet he does.
…and I wonder if he realizes that the Senator is just a spokesman for many, not an exception.
i’ve always wondered why sen. moore has been such a dedicated shill for the private insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
<
p>
do you hear a clamoring around the district to protect the profits of the drug companies by whatever procedural means necessary?
<
p>
i would have thought that the interests of the regular citizen would be skewed more towards wider access to more affordable, quality healthcare. but then gain, i live in an inside-128 bubble.
<
p>
so what gives?
Always a fun time to take a gander at the candidates contributors. OCPF
Click Schedule A (Receipts), enjoy.
it said timed out so I clicked refresh but didn’t see a “Schedule A” option. I wasn’t sure how to get to Moore’s and Walrath’s contributors (they’re the co-chairs of the health finance cmte and also co-chairs of the bogus HC amendment “study cmte”). Any help on this info would be appreciated.
…12 of them DECLARE a connection to the pharmaceutical industry. Mass. College of Pharmacy is the big donor, Schering-Plough came up with a mingy $75. Thought the pharm. companies were supposed to be the BIG donors!
Click the link
Click continue
Click View Reports
Click Candidates
Enter Candidates Last Name
Enter Office Sought
Enter District (Worc & Norfolk for Moore)
Click Year End Report
Click Schedule A (Receipts)
<
p>
Now, have fun.
“9. Same Sex Marriage. The issue may be gaining some level of public acceptance, but it will not go away without giving the voters an opportunity to agree or disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion.”
<
p>
Imagine if the voters had been given that oppurtunity in 1954 if Brown v Board was on the ballot, give me a break, a majority cannot vote on the rights of a minority, thats not democracy!
Since people are all too quick to lynch our legislators for walking away from the vessel of bigotry known as the anti-gay marriage ammendment, let’s clarify things with a quote from June 12, 1967 Loving v. Virginia, delivered by Chief Justice Warren:
<
p>
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
<
p>
Now that we have established that we ARE in fact trying to vote on people’s civil rights, I think it is time we all give our legislators a pat on the back for protecting us from our own ignorance. You don’t get to vote away your fellow countrymen’s civil rights.