Criss-posted at Marry in Massachusetts.
I confess that a good part of me likes the President Lyndon Johnson persona instead. In the U.S. Senate, then as VP and prez, he was a fearsome and sometimes brutal politician. From the 1964 Civil Rights Act to dozens of other major laws and hundreds of minor ones, Johnson used everything from jokes over drinks to threats to get his way, for the benefit of the nation.
Patrick, on the other hand, has a long record of the soft touch in convincing people to do the right thing. It's slower, less sure and takes more work. Yet, those who arrive at the right choice without coercion are happier about it and tend to be repeat cooperators. To top it all, Patrick is perfectly content to let others take credit for the results.
His address will soon be available as a podcast and file on his section of the commonwealth website. MSM and blogs alike will have lots of analysis tomorrow and beyond.
Meanwhile, I'd note:
- There's not a single threat to the sometimes recalcitrant legislature in the whole eight pages. Long term legislators have been party with previous administrations in deferring the necessary until we got into the muck we are now.
- He praises actions already taken as he can. For example, "Last year, this Legislature created a commission to recommend a practical strategy to end homelessness. The Commission has delivered, and my budget funds their recommendations in full. Join us and let’s set ourselves on a course to end homelessness in Massachusetts once and for all. " That's praise with a cooperative call to finish the job.
- He epitomizes the baby-boomer attitude of fixing problems no matter who caused them. He said, "We must do our part as elected officials by managing government responsibly. That includes being willing to curb spending in other areas. Last year I cut some $500 million from state spending, and held spending increases to the lowest level in three years. This year my budget offers another $475 million in cuts. And later this year, through a concept we call MassTrans, I will ask for your support in streamlining our transportation bureaucracy, which will yield further significant savings. "
To that last point, he revisited it several times. The call is steady — I know that the willingness to serve and to sacrifice is out there…Everyone must do his or her part — because everyone has a stake.
Some messages in the address are obvious. He says these are the issues, these are their solutions, and I am providing the funding mechanisms. Some are more subtle. We face huge problems, but we need to take responsibility to fix them. We must sacrifice as needed to do so. We have to do what's necessary for long-term success.
That last set is very, very different from what the past several governors and sets of lawmakers have done. Of course, that's how we ended up in this mess and were so unable to combat issues of the economy as well as infrastructure.
Patrick has simply, and oh so sweetly, upped the ante. Obstructionist legislative leaders have sat on these problems for a year, but he hasn't left them much cover.left them much cover.
The ball has been served. It will hit the legislature’s side of the court in the next week or so as the calls and letters from constituents come into their cubicles begging them not to cut their sacred cow. The ball will bounce a second time when their respective budget leaders ask for their priorities. And guess what, the Governor’s quaint notions of collective action will be subsumed by the request from an influential (donor) constituent to get a $100 grand for their important project (Earmarks-R-Us).
I would love to believe that cooperation is possible. I want to believe this can finally happen. Especially because I think this is it. This is our last shot at a government that isn’t a cartoon (didn’t you expect to see a balloon above DiMasi’s head tonight that read “together we can …yeah, yeah, yeah. Now can I get back to my Verizon-time at Tecce’s?).
Either way, the legislature begins to work together on this in a way they’ve shown no interest or capacity for, or it’s same ol’ with a budget that relies on cuts and rainy day.
Patrick ran on a grass root campaign for the people…..yet the people did not receive a reduction in property taxes; see more “regular” people integrated in his administration or seen any major notable improvement in Massachusetts
<
p>The email I received stated “his administration helped” create 20,000 jobs in Massachusetts. Not mentioned was of course they are in Wal-Mart and Lowes which are low paying eight dollars an hour
<
p>Yes, Patrick can give a motivating speech with polish and pronunciation but the real question is can he deliver. The answer so far has been NO
<
p>And before we run to blame it on the House and Senate remember many who post here have eagerly engaged in electing their candidate who now fill those seats, but now refuse to hold them accountable for their position.
<
p>It is nice to be a political junkie but in the end words are simply words and actions must be taken to save our State from the political, legal and educational nightmare we all face.
I see a comment long on complaints, short on answers…
<
p>If it’s all that hopeless, and there’s no way out, then the final conclusion you must come to is to put your head down and quit, right?
Nothing short of necessity will compel government to become smaller. The current budget is based on consensus growth of 2.9%. Proposed government spending growth is 3.5% (I think/recall).
<
p>Add in one recession and you could easily see 9C cuts, from necessity, in fiscal ’07 or ’08, and we can compare the Patrick cuts to the Romney cuts of ’03.
<
p>Cynicism is oh-so-easy, innit? And it just feels so… so… on target… doni’t?
<
p>But what if it’s really just that space where your laziness meets your despondency and comes to rest?
Just that, and nothing more..
<
p>What if there’s a deeper energy out there? What if people refused to believe in their cynicism?
<
p>What if we chose to believe that, although the truth may hurt, not everything that hurts is the truth.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we believed that you have to make a man (or woman) work to do wrong but the right comes naturally? What if we expected good, instead of dreading bad. Where’d we be if we pushed those buttons?
<
p>
leaves you feeling dreamy. It might just be too many years trying to move the Great and General Court forward (despite my laziness) and seeing the most risk averse governing body ever (and I have worked with a number of legislatures) shrink further from its job. You may have the luxury of poetic amblings about what is ‘possible’ if we just “expected good, instead of dreading bad.” But many people in the state don’t. Keep hoping for the best, as will I.
But just in case the song remains the same, I think we jump at an opportunity that requires reality and practicality. I expect the Gov has figured that out now.
There is no doubt or arguement that some programs and expenditures are redundant, frivolous or are just made to quiet a particular lobby. Other expenditures to such areas as the big dig result from extortion and larceny. There are groups of people in Massachusetts that must assume a greater responsibility for their lot in life, and display some effort to relieve their own plight—with adjustments in assistance as they progress. Success is rewarded.Everyone who derives any benefit from residence in this state must pay some form or of tax. Everyone.
<
p>We must have a bi cameral legislature—-in reality. As long as the one party (whomever they may be) has bullet proof veto authority, then this mess will continue.
<
p>The problem with politicsin USA is that it is now an occupation, not a temporary responsibility as a citizen, like militray service. Career politicians make every decision on electability, not what is best for the community, state, country. We no longer have statesman, we have political hacks.
I was long an advocate of term limits on those grounds.
<
p>After awhile I realized that if terms were so limited, then the only institutional memory of government (What did we do last time we had this problem?) would be the lobbyists.
those who advocate for social service agencies and those who advocate for big corporate interests alike. A grand opportunity to brief a newly elected legislator and establish yourself as a source of information about how a pending decision affects the district.
I completely agree that term limits are a terrible idea, but I’ve often wondered if we’d be better served by a “term limit” on the leadership positions- rotating the Finnerans and DiMasis back to the rank-n-file on a regular basis.
<
p>For the last 10-12 years, the most powerful person in Mass has been the Speaker of the House, a guy elected by about 0.6% of the state population.
in fact our own Massachusetts Legislature instituted term limits for the Speaker (Four 2 year terms I think) during rules reform almost 15-20 years ago. Repealed by the Members almost 8 years ago. Thus Tom Finneran served almost 16 years.
<
p>