Well gosh, it’s not too much to say that a guy who wins by 20 points has a “mandate”, is it? But let’s face it: for all that I have thought that Deval Patrick was more specific than his competitors on any number of issues, the press and general public seem a little vague on exactly what Patrick would support. Clearly the public endorsed Patrick’s personality; I think that goes beyond simple personal warmth (which of course he possesses in abundance) and extends to his temperament, judgement, and decision-making style. But that’s got to lead to something substantive, and soon.
Patrick demonstrated a clear understanding of the low confidence that MA residents have in the competence and honesty of their state government. And anyone who plans to use government to advance the public good ought to take stock of that government’s actual ability to fulfill such promises. Each elected official must understand that every last tax dollar is a sacred trust with the public, not to be frittered or misinvested in special-interest loyalty.
Therefore Patrick would do well to swiftly address the worst offenses against the public trust, especially the Big Dig, and including such other recent mini-scandals such as sick-leave abuse at Massport, the manifest lack of honest leadership at the Turnpike Authority, and nepotism and pension abuse throughout state government. These cause cross-ideological outrage (I guess we can’t really say “bipartisan” anymore); addressing them would genuinely signal a break from the Big Dig Culture — and give Gov. Patrick significantly more credibility in proposing investments at some later date.
(I’m fully confident that Patrick will never go for cheap tricks like taking down the tolls on the ‘Pike west of 128; it makes no budgetary sense, and seems to be a naked last-ditch effort on behalf of Mitt Romney’s legacy and Kerry Healey’s candidacy. So much for those.)
Patrick has already proposed a special inspector general for the Big Dig. Although Patrick correctly suggests total independence for such an investigation, one would hope that the SIG will be invested with enough authority to really get to the bottom of it, where previous efforts (including by the Governor and AG) have failed. Independent or not, this investigation will be a big part of Patrick’s record.
Patrick has also expressed support for greater budget transparency: “If [a line item is] for a gazebo in town X, let’s say it’s for a gazebo in town X.” One wonders if he will endorse the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center’s recommendations that the Commonwealth publish its budget much like a good publicly-traded company’s stock prospectus, with explanations of increases or decreases in various programs, greater description of line items, and disclosure of economic risk factors. He won’t make many friends in the legislature if he pushes for greater budget transparency, since legislators are naturally fond of porky earmarks; but that’s a fight worth having, and Patrick would clearly have the upper hand in the court of public opinion.
Now, none of this sounds like glam liberal-lefty politics-of-hope stuff. But it’s the groundwork for greater ambitions. In order for the public to buy into sizable investments sometime in the future (like wider pre-k education), Patrick has to demonstrate that he is willing and capable of excising waste where it exists, and that he is trustworthy and accountable in spending the public’s tax dollar. That’s OK — there’s ample opportunity to prove his good-government bona fides in a high-profile way … And hopefully he won’t need to do a Village People act with hard-hat and magic markers to do it.
A good place to start would be what they’re planning to do in Congress: attach to every earmark the name of the legislator who introduced or requested it, as well as exactly what it’s for. Full disclosure of lobbyist connections to earmarks would also be nice.
This is exactly what needs to happen in a budgetary sense. It seems so simple, yet even with Deval I must hope beyond hope that it happens.
<
p>
Look, if you want 100k for a gazebo, fine. But we need to know who wants the money, what interests it will serve, etc. Upon these factors we will decide if the money will be well spent.
<
p>
Let me tell you, if anyone thinks the Republicans will do better with this…Check out Mitt’s budget cuts. I can’t tell what the cuts are on, mostly (fault of the Legislature). But, there are only 3-4 reasons for cutting listed (fault of Romney).
<
p>
I ask as much of the cutting board as I ask of the proposing parties. Just show me what we’re proposing to spend, upon what, and for what reason. If there are interests involved, kindly show me what they’ve spent and for what side. It ain’t that tough…
along the lines of cleaning up the budget process how about requiring a fiscal impact statement for every bill submitted? It’s maddening to analyze bills that conjure up dramatic change with not a shred of attention to how it will actually impact the budget.
…from the second Globe story you linked to. At the end it says…
<
p>
“Asked what he thought was the biggest misconception about him, Patrick said, “the liberal thing.” ‘
<
p>
Hell, if he didn’t fool me back in June of 2005 when he told a small house party I attended that, when asked, “will you raise taxes to pay for all the wonderful things you want”, Deval said, “I’m not there yet”.
<
p>
At that momment he lost me. I was hoping for a black Bill Clinton and on the campaign trail I got a black Mike Dukakis (not that there is anything wrong with that). But based on the 2nd Globe story linked above, it looks like I’m getting what I asked for. Good, but I’m not sure how this new tune will play with some folks here.
Everytime Healey tossed that $8 billion number out at the debate, Deval said that there were only a few things he wanted to do immediately – he mentioned more police, all-day kindergarten, and beginning to return aid to cities and towns. Hmmm, that’s exactly what that article said.
<
p>
The rest, he said, will depend on growing the economy first and eliminating waste. Could it be he was actually telling the truth?
<
p>
Where’s the other $7.88 billion? Or could it be that Healey was indeed blowing as much smoke as it seemed?
Don’t be a dickhead like Romney and many other Republicans
EB3 cuts to the heart of the matter. Kudos!
Patrick’s mandate certainly includes enough local tax relief so that he can say he has made good on his campaign commitment. Barring that, a down payment–a first installment, with more to come.
<
p>
If he can’t do that, he’ll be in trouble early on. But I expect him to come through, if not quite as quickly as town-meeting members like me might prefer.
<
p>
The local-aid mandate clearly exempts him from any lingering obligation to reduce the income tax, at least until local services are substantially better funded.
<
p>
This mandate extends to making cuts in and reorgs and consolidations of state programs to get the cash to give to cities and towns. It may even cover a small raid on the rainy-day fund.
<
p>
In the process he will have the opportunity to put his stamp on everything, substantially reshaping state government.
<
p>
The strength of this mandate will meet its first test in his first budget.
By Rick Holmes
<
p>
Removing the tolls on the western pike is not a cheap trick, it is striking a blow for economic justice.
<
p>
Consider: If you live in Northampton and work in Holyoke, or live in Fairhaven and work in New Bedford, or live in Billerica and work in Lowell, or live in Hingham and work in downtown Boston, your ride to work is free. The maintenance of your highway and the policing of that highway is covered by all the state’s taxpayers.
<
p>
But if you live in Natick and work in Marlboro, or live in Palmer and work in Springfield, you have to pay every time you get on the Pike — a highway that was built and paid for 20 years ago. Tolls on the Pike are punitive, inefficient, and just plain wrong.
<
p>
Those who argue that the state just can’t afford to give up the revenue remind me of an accountant who has been embezzling money from the old ladies in the nursing home for years. He knows it’s wrong and would like to stop, but he really really needs the money.
<
p>
For 2 cents on the gas tax — a far more environmentally and economically sound way to raise money for road maintenance — we could make up for the revenue lost if the tolls came down (each penny generates $34 million and after you take out the money spent collecting the tolls and the $8 million subsidy tollpayers give the state police, the revenue left over for road maintenance is around $66 million).
<
p>
The opposition to removing the tolls comes from the Teamsters, which wants to save the jobs of 200 tolltakers, the Beacon Hill hacks who have used the Pike as their personal employment agency for generations and budget bureaucrats like the MTF who count the cash and don’t care whether it was collected in a fair manner.
<
p>
The environmental groups have no place in that gang, and neither does Deval Patrick. As the MetroWest Daily News says in its editorial today (that’s my plug), “It would be a terrible shame if Patrick, elected with such high hopes a week ago, were to cave in to the Teamsters before he’s even sworn in.”
<
p>
Rick Holmes
To get from Parker to Springfield:
Take the PVTA (http://www.pvta.com) Palmer Village Shuttle (cost for a round trip: $1.25, make sure to get a transfer coupon) into Springfield. Earliest it enters Springfield is 9:00.
<
p>
Getting from Natick to Marlboro is tougher. The cheapest way is to take the LIFT (http://www.framingha…) route 6 from Natick into Framingham, and then from Framingham into Marlborough (earliest there is going to be 9:10). This is $2.25 round trip. Again, don’t forget the transfer. If there was a day where you needed to get there earlier, take the commuter rail from West Natick (mbta.com). You can then take route seven and get into Marlborough by 8:10. This will be $6.75 total. Of course, this will go up after the fare hike, making public transit less desirable.
<
p>
The point is, public and mass transit is doable. The challenge, as I see it, is: make it more affordable and convenient with more routes and lower fares, working with both the MBTA and local transit systems. Also: make it easier for people to find these routes, with a comprehensive database with all state transit systems and where they connect.
Cutting tolls and hiking fares, though, is the wrong way to go. The top priority has to be getting people off roads and onto buses and trains.
I take the commuter rail to work and it is extremely convient for me. I love where I live and I love that there is a train station a few blocks from my house. However, on the rare occasion that I decide to drive in, or have to get to the airport, or want to have dinner in town, I can do so at no expense. How is it fair that people who live west of Boston can’t do the same?
<
p>
I pay maybe $10 a year in tolls, so bringing down the booths won’t really affect me one way or the other. For someone who lives in Framingham or Natick and works in town, it is a huge expense and a patenly unfair one to boot.
I travel from Waltham to North Sation and back M-F. It is 4 stops from one to the other. The current cost is $118/month. The fare will be increased by 25% in January. If there is really a desire to get people off the roads and into public transportation, how can we reconcile that with this increase in public transportation costs, not to mention the inconvenience of the commuter rail and the poor service.
<
p>
Someone sent me an email regarding Deval’s response to questions about what he plans to do about the recent budget axing Romney has done. I was a bit concerned that he did not immediately state that he intended to restore all of the cuts. Seems as if he wants to use this as an opportunity to look more closely at different line items in the budget. As one who works in the human service field, I am just a bit concerned about what this will mean for services for our most vulnerable citizens. Does anyone have more information on this than I do?
Deval can start by moving the ‘bio-lab’ to the Berkshires instead of Roxbury!
Most of the comments on this thread tout one reform or improvement or new program or other that Patrick might go for.
<
p>
But as I read the question, we were to try to tease out the policy significance of Patrick’s win. For that you have to look very hard at how he ran, what he ran on, and what the expectations of the people who voted for him are.
<
p>
Seems to me the short list includes
<
p>
* Corruption in general, and the Big Dig in particular
<
p>
* General improvements in management, efficiency, and maybe transparency of government
<
p>
* Better funding of local services, including some local-tax relief.
<
p>
No doubt with a win as big as we got, the wind is also at his back on issues that were not at the center of the campaign if he chooses. But I suggest he has a strong mandate to deliver on the above, and to ask the legislature for whatever it takes to do it.