Well, here's an interesting, loaded quote:
“I think Massachusetts will look at it to find out what they can see in Obama with respect to what they did with their vote for Governor Patrick,” DiMasi said in response to a question. “To be perfectly honest, I really don't want my president to be in there in a learning process for the first six months to a year. It's too important.”
The remarks highlighted a rivalry between Patrick and DiMasi that has mostly focused on disagreements over Patrick's policy initiatives. DiMasi clashed with the freshman governor on a number of major issues throughout 2007, posing the biggest challenge to Patrick's efforts to tighten corporate tax codes to prevent business from avoiding state taxes, win a bill licensing three casinos in the state, and pass a $1 billion stimulus bill for the state's life sciences industry.
Asked yesterday how he would judge Patrick's first year in office, DiMasi offered a laugh, and said, “I say that the Legislature did a great job.”
Leaving aside Obama vs. Clinton … let's process this a little bit: I think everyone would agree that there were a few missteps at the beginning of Patrick's administration, mostly in terms of handling the press. After Joe Landolfi et al came on board, I haven't seen too much evidence that Patrick's inexperience has come into play.
The major conflicts now are over arithmetic (revenue and spending) and the pace of legislative action. That has little to do with experience; if anything, the debate over revenue stems mostly from DiMasi's stubborn inability to recognize that the state simply cannot fulfill its current obligations — to health care and infrastructure, among other things — without new revenue. That comes from being conditioned by a fearful political culture — afraid of Verizon's lobbyists on their sweet tax exemptions; afraid of changing revenue streams to something more fair; afraid of giving greater control of revenue streams to cities and towns for fear of being thought a “tax raiser”. His experience tells him that he's vulnerable to lobbyists, but somehow immune to arithmetic.
The legislature did a great job last year? I'll give you same-sex marriage … but mostly it succeeded in punting issues into this year: Life sciences, the energy bill, parts of the Municipal Partnership Act. I'll happily give DiMasi credit on holding up the casino bill … but where else is the revenue going to come from? Hello?
Frankly, I'd prefer a governor who's a little less accustomed to the legislature's shuffling pace of work, obedience to special interests, and sense of complacency while municipalities face crisis. It's too important.
UPDATE: In the comments, Farnkoff says: “DiMasi sounds like he's declaring victory over the people of Massachusetts”.
Kind of like Romney.
I’m quoting you in the main post.
Can we have a speaker next time who does not try to become Governor without running for the position?
A couple of things, first, taxes/revenues are forecast (consensus) to increase 2.9% for fiscal 2007, so a budget much in excess of 2.9% necessarily seeks money elsewhere. Obvious, right?
<
p>In light of recent and impending upending in the neverending mortgage problem, DiMasi ought to be seriously questioning the 2.9% forecast and rightly sees nothing good will come of raising taxes during a recession.
<
p>The Patrick ‘close-the-loophole’ cliche ’07 failed miserably. Whether you believe the loophole thing is just or unjust, the business community believes it to be too-clever-by-half packageing of a tax increase.
<
p>Farnkoff has said and I disagree, but welcome the continued debate, that Corporations pay less tax than is equitable. Yet, Taxpayer Foundation says just the opposite, and the Farnkoff most favorable sources show a Massachusetts that is, at best, average in its taxation of business. DiMasi might well believe business already pays its fair share–he has support from some reputable institutions.
<
p>Same sex marriage. Geez…get over it. It was a side show. Christ I’d have voted for it or against it, whatever, just to get the issue off the table. It’s the money/economy/taxes stupid. It’s always about the money. Anything else is chit-chat.
<
p>”The Legislature did a great job last year”. What a bloviating boob.
<
p>DiMasi has successfully painted Patrick as the little kid wanting a bigger allowance: “But dad, you can get a raise from the Corporations; Dad, how about casinos….
I agree it’s time for people to “get over it,” but it wasn’t a side show. Thankfully, it seems, you weren’t effected by the debate. But for the 5-10% of this state who are gay, bisexual and even transgender, it did matter. And it mattered to their friends and family, too. It wasn’t chit chat to us… it was f undamental to our lives… bloviating boob, indeed.
I’m sure it was important to you, fundamental even. Fundamental to 10000; a sideshow to 6 million. (i.e. Sideshow as in by contrast to the Center Ring.
<
p>The Center Ring is always about the money.
This is exactly the type of thing so many people have left BMG over. I could call you homophobic, an asshole, a jerk and go into nasty, personal terms… and risk at least a severe talking to from the editors. Now, I’ve never used personal insults in that way, so I’ve never had to engage in that kind of conversation… but I can see why I get so many complaints from fellow commenters via email on BMG, including those who choose to no longer participate. Meanwhile, you’ve just insulted not only me, but 5-10% of this state’s entire population, as well as their friends, relatives and coworkers in a way far worse than any personal insult.
<
p>There’s too many people like who, who are far more offensive than anyone who would defend themselves by issuing a personal attack against you. Your offhand comments are not only homophobic, but entirely incorrect. 5-10% of this state’s population is nearly a half million and up. That’s a helluva lot of people. Then add in their friends, family, cousins and coworkers – who all cared. It wasn’t a sideshow to any of us. Hell, I was just talking to David Yas on my podcast – a columnist for Lawyer’s Weekly – who has been a crusader on this topic and thinks the Goodridge decision is the most important legal decision to come down in Massachusetts in decades. I’ll paraphrase: ‘it wasn’t an accident that the SJC issued the decision on the anniversary of Brown v. the Board of Education.’ It was that important. By the bye, David Yas is straight.
<
p>It was only a sideshow to you because you belong in the catagory of people who I truly wish I never had to engage in. I wish I could expand beyond that point, but then I’d be getting into those personal attacks that the editors so wish us to avoid.
For a moment in time, ney for time eternal, the energies, resources and wisdom of all our elected officials and the judiciary caused and causes the Gay Marriage debate and outcome to be the center ring, utmost importance, and all else to be merely reflections by comparison.
<
p>Tax policy, education, medicaid, universal health, election reform, welfare, banking and insurance policy…–each policy of which affect each one of us pale in comparison to the Marriage decision of 2007. I’ve erred. My mistake. You’re right.
Marriage equality is neither the end, nor the beginning. Of course, its importance varies by person. To some people, it literally is one of the most important expansions in civil rights during their lifetime. That’s not to say it’s more important than the issues of health care, election reform or educational policy — my one and only point was that marriage equality, and gay rights in general, is damn important and worth this state’s efforts.
<
p>You said it was a side show. It’s not. That’s all there is to it – nothing more and nothing less.
Three rings: center ring and two side shows.
<
p>In that which is government, there are items of importance and there are side shows. For the important items, follow the money. The others are side shows. YMMV.
Side shows are not in any of the three rings of a circus, they are outside the big top tent.
<
p>No. Not so obvious at all… why do you think so?
<
p>I never drank the ‘balanced budgets all the time’ kool-aid. I can see where running a budget deficit might be sound economic policy. In fact, that’s more obvious to me than the canard math you proffer.
<
p>
<
p>The only coherence emerging from this random collection of (other peoples) synaptic mis-firings is a tacit admission that the legislature sits in a comfortable and deep pocket…
<
p>
<
p>Translation: “The issue is beneath me. As are you. Why do you not genuflect?”
<
p>
<
p>I think the oxygen is running out on that planet you’re on…
<
p>
<
p>Because, by law, the State must operate with a balanced budget. You may see where running a budget deficit is sound, and perhaps it is, but it’s illegal.
<
p>
<
p>Not beneath me, just unimportant to me, and most residents, IMHO. Must it be otherwise?
<
p>
<
p>Yeah, yeah. Let’s get the ad hominem attacks out of the way.
<
p>
<
p>And an exceedingly stupid law it is.
<
p>
<
p>Let’s review Ad Hominem shall we? It’s not ad hominem if I think your arguments are informed by a lack of oxygen. It would be ad hominen if I made the contention that you refused to draw breath because you liked the dizzy feeling you get.
We should deficit spend, but first let’s amend the State’s Constitution, because it’s stupid for the Constitution to compel the state to spend only what it has. Interesting position. Tell me more.
<
p>
<
p>I couldn’t tell you a thing about that position, however interesting. You’ve mistaken me for some-one who’s advocating that position.
<
p>There is nothing about ‘balanced’ budgets in that mangled, trussed up and antiquated heap of amendments and annulation to which you refer. Massachusetts General Law, however, does make mention of just such a thing in the above listed chapters: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws… So while required by general law, it is not mandated by the constitution. As a stupid law, it ought to be challenged.
<
p>
<
p>Wow. You’re a cheap date. I wanna go a couple more rounds of your coy mis-representations and inter-textual preenings before I make a man outta you.
<
p>Then we can snuggle.
<
p>
I’m a cheap date, but you’re mistaken on the balance of your post. To be clear, if you’re advocating for something less than a balanced State budget, it’ll take the repeal of your cited statute, and, and amendment to the Constitution.
<
p>Chapter 29 Section 6E is a statute requiring a balanced budget. If, a statute were passed that negated the need for a balanced budget, said statute would be unconstititional, because, the effect of the statute would be to negate Article LXIII, Section 2 of the Constitution.
<
p>Here’s a good discussion of the ‘balanced budget’ States and whether the requirement is Constitutional or Statutory, or in the case of Massachusett, both.
<
p>In particular, see Table 1.
…while state law requires that the state have a balanced budget, it doe not preclude the state government from “bonding the operating deficit” and paying over time. That’s that’s more than a bit of a slight of hand, but it’s what Dukakis was reported to have done in the late 1980s.
<
p>BTW, as far as I can tell, trying to balance the state government budget by reducing state spending more likely than not will put pressre on cities and towns to increase taxes at that level.
This will teach the Governor that if he wants to succeed, he either has to build the coalitions or really take on Beacon Hill – Thunder Dome style. It’s probably too late to build coalitions to overcome DiMasi’s grasp… so he’s going to have to go to the mattresses.
<
p>The problem now, of course, is that he’s alienated so many members of his army between trying to cut corporate taxes and build three casinos that it’s going to be a much more difficult process. If he shelved the casinos for now and decided to prioritize the Municipal Partnership Act, he could just rev up his peeps and get a home field advantage for this fight.
<
p>Agree
<
p>I think the legislature, and in particular DiMasi, have brought this on themselves. DiMasi is beginning to strike me as rather arrogant and fundamentally disrespectful. He seems misled, as well, about his role in the state.
<
p>
<
p>Disagree.
<
p>I don’t know as he’s alienated all that many people. I don’t think ‘displeasure’ is synonymous with ‘alienation’. Romney, for instance, alienated me right off the bat with a too too clever jujitsu on the truth, a creepily aggressive ambition and the underlying aversion to risk. Not only do I disagree with his policies, but I disagree with his methods and processes. In total, he is alien to me and to my experiences. Same with the Bush/Cheney hydra. That’s alienation: I simply can’t imagine how they live with themselves and/or sleep at night. Patrick, on the other hand, hasn’t done anything either underhanded or blatantly disrespectful of my vote. I don’t agree with him (on casinos), but I can see the process and the methods by which he arrived at this policy and find it altogether aboveboard. In addition, I can see that what any reasonable person, under similar circumstances, might do in the same situation is not that different. In short, I remain with a distinct affinity.
<
p>
<
p>Disagree
<
p>I don’t think he can win with legislation. This battle isn’t over until either DiMasi and/or Patrick are gone. It’s that simple and no amount of legislative wins/losses will make a difference. In fact, the battle isn’t about winning legislation: it’s about getting the legislation a fair hearing on its merits. I certainly don’t think that happened with respect to the corporate loopholes and the life sciences initiative..
<
p>I think that, of the two, DiMasi has more pressure on him. Patrick is acting in his constitutional capacity as Governor (which is the political equivalent of ‘home field advantage’). DiMasi is assuming extra-institutional roles for which his office and his election were not suited nor intended: plus, he’s acting like a pissant while doing this.
<
p>The legislature needs to be put in it’s place: a branch of state government. What’s amazing (to me, at least) is that the position of the legislature is a very important one. It’s a valuable and valued component of the state and should be treated like this. But even DiMasi, and his predecessors, treat it like a subordinate step-child: by constantly over-reaching their roles for more influence and/or control, they’re slighting the considerable influence and control they should normally have… Now, anybody who’s read some of my previous posts know that I place the blame for this situation squarely on the vacuum that is Bill Weld et al and Willard Romney, but they are the context by which DiMasi and Patrick are presented with decisions. At some point they have to shed the failure that was Bill Weld et al… Particularly DiMasi.
While casinos and cutting corporate taxes may have not alienated you, I can think of many people who are so severely disappointed by the Governor’s recent decisions that they would be a lot less likely to answer his figurative call. That’s what I meant by alienating…
<
p>Also, I don’t think DiMasi is going beyond his constitutional powers. Speakers have often been the major source of power throughout American history. It’s only recent that the executive branches have been the more powerful. While I don’t support DiMasi’s actions – and would certainly agree that he’s an arse – I don’t think he’s legally going beyond his powers.
<
p>Finally, I think DiMasi can be defeated on many of these proposals if the Governor is successful using the bully pulpit. Hundreds of people knocking on DiMasi’s doors has to make a difference. If Patrick were willing to really go out and take on DiMasi in a public way, he could gain support. He could also go further than the Bully Pulpit and come to the decision that until the House passes some of his revenue options, he’ll effectively shut government down – not signing any bills or budgets. Governors often win that fight, especially when its just.
Ryan, I’d love to believe that DiMasi can be moved on some of these things (not casinos) … but I really don’t know how. The folks who I’ve heard from say DiMasi’s power is such that he basically gets whatever he wants in the House. And certainly he’s in no danger of losing his seat, or the Speakership as long as he wants it.
<
p>So I’ve pushed the notion that Patrick should get out and leverage his personality to get what he wants. But I ask both of us: Where’s the lever of power with DiMasi? What’s his political weakness? What am I missing?
Orders of magnitude more people voted for Deval Patrick than they did for Sal DiMasi. If those same people voted for Patrick’s candidates in the next round of Democratic primaries, it would be Patrick’s legislature. Even a few object lessons would totally change the dynamic.
<
p>I think a lot of people in Massachusetts are like me. Not terribly enamored of their local representatives and senators, but letting them stick around because there aren’t credible alternatives. If there were, things would change. And Deval Patrick, as a Democratic governor and de facto head of the state Democratic party is uniquely positioned to make that change.
<
p>And, truthfully, the way things are going, Patrick is going to have to run against the legislature if he wants to be re-elected. Patrick ran against the “Big Dig culture” to get elected and as time has passed it has become clearer and clearer that Sal DiMasi is its embodiment. If that is going to be the message in 2010, then it is a good idea to take it for a test drive in 2008.
For the folks in this state who even know DiMasi’s name, they may not be exactly thrilled by him (to put it kindly). The Governor could make that 10,000x worse if he wanted. DiMasi’s already gone and trashed Deval’s name, Patrick ought not to be afraid of fighting fire with fire. Make DiMasi look bad enough and some House members will be willing to vote against the speaker on at least a few, key issues. We may not get everything we want, but compromises are unfortunately what government is often about.
with 141 Democratic Members of the House. Don’t forget that Speakers and Senate Presidents have to get elected a second time — to their leadership posts. Anyone who thinks these votes are locked up because of past favors, appointments or room assignments should remember the oldest political comeback in the world. “What have you done for me lately?”
<
p>Every day is the day before election day for a Legislative Leader who wishes to keep the support of his or her own Members. And every day is an opportunity to demonstrate one’s ability to lead the consensus building process in the body, which I am defining here as exercising real power by making daily decisions that either move forward or stop a proposed policy change. Excerpted in part from Real Clout.
<
p>Then, I submit, you ought to use a word that expresses what you mean.
<
p>I suppose it seems like a quibble, but ‘alienation’ isn’t a choice. ‘Alienated’ voters are those who don’t recognize the call to begin with… Alienation, to put it bluntly, means living outside your frame of reference: an in-ability to grasp the context in which decisions and calls are made. You’re really talking, merely, about disappointment. Why is this important? Because you’re saying things that you later have to explain and amend. Why don’t you just pick the right word the first time?
<
p>
<
p>I disagree, as I’ve said, and furthermore I think you’re being a little naive: this imbalance in the speakership (in the lege as whole, in fact) is the entire problem. DiMasi just inherited the situation, he didn’t create it. If DiMasi is replaced by someone who’ll act the same way, what have we gained? Nothing. DiMasi is speaking and acting like HE’s the executive! That’s an extra-constitutional role for the Speaker of the House in the legislature.
<
p>DiMasi has to go and the person who replaces him ought to respect both the office of Speaker and the that of the Governor by doing the one and letting Patrick do the other.
<
p>
<
p>Again, we can’t define success as ‘wins in the legislature’. Success, however boring it may sound, is merely defined as a fair hearing for the Governors proposals. ‘Cause when that happens, we all win.
Take your pick of definitions:
<
p>Alienate
<
p>
<
p>I would submit that “disappointment” can lead to alienation, when people who are disappointed are disappointed to the extent where they will no longer support a candidate they once did. Hence, alienation. The definitions above support my conclusion.
<
p>
<
p>But they’re coequal branches. Deval could just veto everything he had a minor disagreement with, Senator Murray could be pulling many of the same stunts that DiMasi is pulling. The only reason why DiMasi has been particularly powerful is because he’s a) vocal and b) clearly thinks he has a large enough base of support that he can get his way. Again, there’s nothing he’s doing that’s unconstitutional. It’s only unfortunate that we, as a people, don’t run more primary races against incumbants – because that’s truly the only way to constitutionally keep people like DiMasi in check.
<
p>No, ‘they’ are not.
<
p>Deval Patrick is the executive. He is ‘co-equal’ with the ENTIRE legislature… of which DiMasi is ONLY one member.
<
p>
<
p>The only reason DiMasi has been particularly powerful (and, please, pay attention, we’ve gone over this before) is because of the stunning weakness (nay, absence) of the past (Republican) Governors: They all checked out very very very shortly after being elected. Past Speakers and past Senate Presidents have filled that vacuum with their own sense of entitlement: which systemic imbalance DiMasi has inherited and is having fun with now. This is not ‘business as usual’ with a particularly strong willed actor (DiMasi) doing what he’s supposed to be doing, only more aggressively. This is a systemic imbalance in the workings of the state where entitlement and power were enabled by weak-willed and slack executives. The entire system which you so rightly hold up as desirable depends on engagement by all actors. Too little engagement by one actor and the others will encroach. That is exactly what happened. Now, we have all actors engaged with one (DiMasi) unwilling to give territory gained during the encroachment. It’s that simple.
<
p>
<
p>Don’t blame the people. That’s too easy by a passive aggressive half. Blame William Weld and Mitt Romney. They failed to BE the co-equal branches that you so desire. They failed. Did you think there would be no consequences (at least for us) of their failure? Do you think that, like an elastice band, polis would snap back into alignment? Do you think it’s supposed to correct itself? Where would you get those ideas?
Seriously, how long do you want to drag this out? I was within the confines of the definition of alienate. Seriously..
<
p>
<
p>Deval Patrick is one member of the executive branch, just as DiMasi is only one member of the legislative branch. While Deval is the leader of the executive branch, DiMasi is the leader of the legislative branch (along with the Senate President). This isn’t that hard to fathom.
<
p>
<
p>That may have lead to a situation where Speakers started to take full advantage of the potentials of their powers, but the fact of the matter is DiMasi is powerful precisely because he’s the Speaker of the House with enough support in that body to almost always get his way. Certainly, I agree with you that weak Republican Governors lead to Speakers becoming that powerful, but that doesn’t mean for a second that any Speaker of the House couldn’t have done the same thing no matter the party occupying the Corner Office. If a strong executive is all it took to create a strong executive office – as you suggest – then Deval Patrick should be well on his way to wrestling back the powers. Unfortunately, a strong executive can’t pass legislation, which is precisely why a Speaker of the House in any state, or at the federal level, can become extremely powerful if they have huge party loyalty and a large enough majority.
<
p>
<
p>I should blame Mitt Romney and Bill Weld for not running primary races against DiMasi? I’m not being passive aggressive. The population in general is reticent to run against incumbents or do anything to foster important change. That much is an unfortunate fact. There’s a movement of people (progressives) working hard to change that, but we haven’t been as successful as we’d like yet. If you’re furious at DiMasi, you should find someone in his district that agrees with your point, encourage that person to run and get involved in the campaign. Even if they fail, they could win – win by forcing DiMasi to change some of his policies and maybe become an advocate for some of the good policy ideas being bandied about. Heck, as a Field Director, I’d even give you a few free pointers in how to defeat a powerful incumbent.
This one seems like a good common-sense measure that might even save some corporations money by their not having to hire “high-powered” accounting and law firms to set up LLC’s in Bermuda and three different partnerships, S-corporations and so forth in MA all for the purpose of saving a few bucks in taxes. Is tax-code jockeying really a productive service that adds value to our economy?