I should have seen the Senate President’s comments for what they are: Beacon Hill politics. Billy Bulger may be gone, but who says Travaglini is any better? Sharing the same Democratic base, the Governor-Elect may be a greater threat to the Senate President than a Republican governor. Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Patrick. His over-ride of a Senate bill can’t be passed off as partisan politics.
I think Travaglini’s comments two days ago were a line in the sand:
“I told the gov.-elect, if you’re willing to share and you care and you prepare and are ready to deliver, then everything will work out. If not, I have senators across the state who share my vision and my approach and if forced to choose, I’m comfortable with whom they’ll choose.”
Earmarks
In the legislature, state representatives “have also been concerned that Patrick may move to cut earmarks, money that is directed by legislators to local projects.”
Earmarks, according to the Wikipedia, “require that all or a portion of a certain source of revenue (such as a tax) must be devoted towards spending on a specific public expenditure…. Governments are often fond of earmarking, while public finance experts often criticize earmarking since it provides an avenue for corruption including kickbacks and because it reduces the discretion and flexibility of the government, which may lead to a loss in economic efficiency.”
Earmarks came to the public’s attention in the last federal budget when Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was heavily criticized this year for an earmark which would have financed a multi-million dollar “bridge to nowhere.”
“They are not pork,” House speaker Sal DiMasi said about earmarks earlier this week. “They are legislators’ priorities.”
Money is power in politics. Aside from actual corruption or plain, old sleaziness, many of our elected representatives need to deliver money in the form of projects and relief to those who support them. Very often their elections depend on it.
If Deval Patrick is the reformer I think he is going to be, Beacon Hill power brokers may have a lot more to worry about than if Kerry Healey were elected.
The Republican talking point before (and the day after) the election was that electing Patrick would increase taxes. Matt Margolis, a Republican blogger for Hub Politics, saw Patrick as part of an axis of, if not, evil, at least Dems Gone Wild:
Make no mistake about it, Trav and DiMasi look at Deval Patrick as the next governor and see an ally… a rubber stamp. Deval may tell the TV cameras that he won’t be a rubber stamp, but we all know better. Deval may on occasion veto a piece of legislation to give the appearance of not being a rubber stamp, but most of us will see through the act. When Romney vetoed legislation it was mostly a symbolic gesture. When and if Deval Patrick vetoes legislation, it will be an act of deception.
It’s going to be a long and expensive four years.
I never bought the argument that a Republican governor would provide a better check on government spending. What the hell’s the difference between a symbol and a rubber stamp if the outcome is the same?
It may turn out that a Democratic governor can exert more control over the state government than a Republican figurehead. Travaglini’s angry comments two days ago may be just the beginning of a curb on his power. At least, I think we have reason to hope so.
–Mb
amberpaw says
After all, look at what the Eagle Tribune had to say about the House mothballing the aid to the Danvers explosion victims passed by the senate:
<
p>
House slows state aid for flood, explosion victims
By Edward Mason , Staff writer
Eagle-Tribune
<
p>
<
p>
BOSTON – Apparently without warning the Senate, Massachusetts House leaders yesterday derailed plans to pass multimillion dollar aid packages for victims of the May floods and last month’s chemical plant explosion in Danvers.
<
p>
The Senate on Monday approved about $12 million in aid for flood victims and last week passed $2.3 million for the city of Danvers. Both bills tapped money set aside but unspent for victims of Hurricane Katrina who were evacuated to Cape Cod.
<
p>
Senators were furious at the House move, done they say without their consultation, and said they would call an emergency meeting Monday of North of Boston lawmakers to draw up strategies to get the bills passed this year.
<
p>
http://www.eagletrib…
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
if one branch of government disagree with another they are an obstructionist?
Please, Deval was elected not annointed. He is not the definition of GOOD, and those against him are not the symbol of BAD.
<
p>
Ahhhh, the world revolves around Deval’s evangelical base,
The far left.
sabutai says
You know it’s a power struggle if a leader of the legislative branch says anything vaguely critical of Deval in a hypothetical situation.
<
p>
If Trav or Sal ever tried to override a Deval veto, it would be perceived as an attempt at a coup d’etat.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
my mistake
yellow-dog says
Ernie,
<
p>
You seem to be conflating my original post with the comment that follows. My thesis was that Deval might, in fact, disagree with the Senate and Legislature, and actually be able to wield political power that Romney never could. That wouldn’t be a case of obstructionism; it would, in fact, be a balance of power.
<
p>
Mark
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
“Billy Bulger may be gone, but who says Travaglini is any better? Sharing the same Democratic base, the Governor-Elect may be a greater threat to the Senate President than a Republican governor. Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Patrick. His over-ride of a Senate bill can’t be passed off as partisan politics.
I think Travaglini’s comments two days ago were a line in the sand:”
<
p>
That to me is calling the guy an obstructionist. People who draw lines in the sand usually do so to frsutrate the other guys purpose.
yellow-dog says
is frustrating the other guys purpose. A line in the sand merely denotes where that frustration takes place.
<
p>
Obstructionism is the Berlin Wall, not a line in the sand.
<
p>
Mark
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
in politics, my friend. Politicians don’t draw them. Obstructionists do.
yellow-dog says
You troll all over the place. I’ve yet to come across a blog comment where you take the affirmative side on an issue.
<
p>
Over and out,
<
p>
Mark
<
p>
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
What do your observations of my rhetorical tendencies have to do with the conejecture?
massmarrier says
This seems less about curbing Bobby’s power and getting him to use it. As Senate President, he has accomplished next to nothing, other than enabling earmarks and other pork.
<
p>
Deval’s job, it would seem, should include getting him to gather the real votes for real laws and real changes.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
I love this “new sheriff in town” attitude.
yellow-dog says
Remember the warm fuzzies being passed around in the media and among conservatives when the Iraqis first went to the polls? The fact is democracy isn’t merely free elections, it’s about what happens afterwards. The same is true for governor.
<
p>
Deval Patrick is the best governor-elect we ever had. But if he turns out to be a lousy governor, or even an average one, his transition won’t matter much. He really hasn’t had much of an opportunity to screw up yet.
<
p>
Be patient. You’ll find something better to complain about than people who see reason for hope in Deval.
<
p>
Mb
sammy says
You are correct in saying that, “Money is power in politics.” You are also correct that Deval will be a check on the Legislature’s power. He can call on friends in the legislature to sustain a veto where Romney could not. However, while you correctly assess this as a power struggle, your discussion on earmarks is flawed in some major ways.
<
p>
First, your argument does not compare apples to apples when you use earmarks in the Congress to slam them on Beacon Hill. The Governor has the Line Item Veto and the President does not. That is difference is ignored.
<
p>
Second, It is not fair to even imply that it is corrupt or obstructionist for the Legislature to refuse to cede their power to Deval or any Governor for that matter.
<
p>
I just don’t think that earmarks and outside sections are any more or less corrupt or flawed than other vehicles used by the legislature. It’s about the substance of the earmark, outside section or bill that is what should be at issue. The Governor has the ability to veto all of these, should he wish to do so. Simply put, that’s democracy.
<
p>
Without earmarks, the Legislature would become a rubber stamp for the Governor?because, as you correctly state?Money is power. Why write a blank check to the governor when it is constitutional for you to direct the money the money where you want? In this scenario, the Governor would have pretty much all the power. Not Deval, the Governor. I make this distinction because as we all know, Deval will not always be Governor. I don’t want the next Romney to have that much unchecked power. Imagine what the last 4 would have been like if Romney could have cut spending wherever he wished…
<
p>
No intelligent legislator would cede that power?.Read the Federalist Papers?In no way did they want the power in one branch, most certainly not the executive. Since the Founding Fathers used the MA Constitution as a model for the federal one, I think it’s fair to use their arguments here.
<
p>
I guess it just comes down to my belief that even though it is right for Deval to limit the power of the legislature, he should not have too much power either. I think that would happen if earmarks were eliminated.
yellow-dog says
I reread my post. Aside from the “line item veto” about which you are correct, I think you credit me with opinions I don’t hold and haven’t asserted.
<
p>
I guess I implied that the Legislature “should cede their power to Deval or any Governor for that matter” with the word “control.” A bad choice of words on my part. I also used the words “check on government spending” and “curb on his power.” I did so in reference to a post from Hub Politics.
<
p>
The original incident was not about what was going on behind the scenes, but Travaglini’s peculiar public outburst, which led to a public appearance with Deval and something like an apology.
<
p>
Aside from the fuzziness of my post, I stand by my thesis. I don’t know if earmarks can, or should, be eliminated or if Deval is actually considering cutting them or just using his line item veto. The information is scant in this case.
<
p>
We are pretty much in agreement, however: “even though it is right for Deval to limit the power of the legislature, he should not have too much power either.”
<
p>
Mark