Regardless of what position you have on the casino bill it’s clear that the speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives is much too powerful. First it was Finneran and many people felt that he abused his power. The fact is that the position of speaker is much too powerful and it’s up to the house membership to show some courage and modify the rules so that democracy prevails.
Those who opposed the casino bill may be pleased that it failed, but in the future it could be a bill that you support that the speaker blocks. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this issue.
Ken Cabral
Please share widely!
The Speaker of the House is accustomed to doing the governor’s job for him/her. Whether it’s Weld chasing the ambassadorship to Mexico, Celucci jetting off to Ottawa, Dukakis running for the White House, or Romney doing the same, we’ve had a part-time governor in Massachusetts for much of the last 20 years.
<
p>In their absence, somebody had to run the state. Heck, even when some of those people were around, there was always going to be a leader of a co-equal branch of government to stand for the good of the state against the political posing going on. Powerful Speakers are one of the reasons this state hasn’t been as thoroughly mismanaged as states under other Republican governors. Do you think Nancy Pelosi has too much power? These days, I don’t think she has enough!
<
p>I’m sorry you didn’t like the casino vote, but don’t blame it on the Speaker. We have a political neophyte as governor who spends a great deal of time out of state pursuing Barack Obama’s political ambitions, or his own.
<
p>We need somebody to run this state, and for the last coupla decades that has been the Speaker of the House. Until we have a governor whose number one priority is governing the state, it will continue to be the Speaker of the House. Deval decided to start a shooting match without knowing how to reload a gun. Surprise — he lost.
…for instance if those few Republicans who blocked better healthcare for children weren’t able to stymie that progress.
<
p>But, sabutai, Deval’s effort for Obama has a big upside for Massachusetts: historically, our state’s wealth has gone to the Federal level and subsidized economic development in the South and West (TVA, Coulee Dam, etc.) and if Obama wins it all, Deval has chits he can cash in to get more Federal money for our state to provide the services our commonwealth needs–without raising state taxes.
<
p>Part of the reason we are stuck in a budget crunch has to do with a Republican President (and Congress) who re-distributed the wealth away from states like ours to superwealthy individuals all over the country… and a better Federal government is one solution to Massachusetts’ tight budget.
What were those lay-abouts Tip O’Neill, Ted Kennedy, Joe Moakley and Paul Tsongas doing all those years?
<
p>Joel – wealth was redistributed away BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WENT AWAY. The Federal programs follow the populace. DC doesn’t realize how inherently cool we are, I guess.
Nobody would have applauded the curtailing of the House Speaker’s powers more than the Corrupt Midget – Sen. President Bulger, who bestrode the halls of his day with absolute authority. After the hapless Kevarian and the convicted Flaherty, Finneran became Speaker at the same time the Senate elected a weak successor to Bulger, and the balance shifted.
<
p>Thus, the creation of the Omnipotent Speaker.
<
p>Meanwhile, the third leg of the stool – the Governor – has his own and less obvious powers. The Governor controls the apparatus of all state agencies, and can make policy decisions immediately, without necessarily needing legislation to advance an agenda.
<
p>When there was a viable minority, there was greater debate and independence among the members. The single party legislature has more to do with the power of the Speaker than his official powers.
<
p>Really, changing the powers of the Speaker is like suicide – a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
In terms of actual powers, the Governor of Massachusetts is actually one of the most powerful Governors in the state. There was a neat article about it that came out at around the same time of the ConCon – wish I saved that link. But it’s for the reasons that PP spoke about: the Governor’s direct power over various agencies, ability to control certain other aspects of government, etc.
<
p>The Speaker is very powerful, but Governor Patrick had a recipe to nip into the heals of that power and make sure both of those branches really were coequal. Unfortunately, by abandoning his people-powered army, he’s abandoned a great deal of potential to influence the legislature and twist arms away from DiMasi. He’s done that at the same time that he actually picked a fight with the Speaker, who’s now emerged more powerful than ever.
<
p>In the end, I really have to agree with PP’s analysis on this matter,
<
p>
<
p>Patrick just happens to be a victim of his own circumstances, one that he may still be able to climb out of, but only if he sticks to the issues that people actually care about, and only if he rallies the population into effectively lobbying for them. Those are all long term things, so he better start with them now, because it may just take the rest of his administration to have major victories to show for it.
This is the model I prefer for a legislative Speakership. That is, a presiding officer who does not control the agenda or have real allegiance to any party. Currently House rules treat the Speaker and the Minority as counterparts. It should be Majority and Minority leaders handling partisan business with the Speaker remaining above the fray. A legislator elected from just one district should not have so much power over the rest of us.
Our forefathers specifically rejected the English model.
<
p>I love this throw the baby out with the bath water thinking.
<
p>It’s all about Deval.
It’s all about me.
<
p>No need to think this through
After all, our forefathers had god-like insight and wisdom. They rejected something; ergo it will never ever be worth revisiting. Nothing the British do could possibly be worthwhile, or else we wouldn’t have rejected it, right?
<
p>No need to think this through.
after un resigning from the Republican Party and registering as an independent will be your first non-partisan speaker. Still like the idea?
Hey, I wasn’t actually saying one way or the other whether the above “independent Speaker” idea was a good one or not. All I was saying is that the suggestion that “the British do it therefore we shouldn’t” is a really dumb idea.
must be on the take. The Brits system has to suck.
They rejected the hereditary sovereign, but many such as John Adams and Alexander Hamilton were not shy about saying how much they admired the British system. The federal Constitution makes just one reference to the Speaker saying, “The House of Representatives shall chuse its Speaker and other Officers, and have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Without elaborating on the Speakership its safe to assume that the Commons model is what they had in mind.
wouldn’t teh majority leader then have all the power under that system?
…but at least I see that as more desireable than having someone who is suppose to in theory be the leader of the whole House rather than just the majority. I still think committee chairs should be elected by the chamber and offices assigned by lottery or seniority. In other words, the fewer incentives to please one particular legislative colleague the better.
Unfortunately this state has a constitution which demands seperate BUT EQUAL branches. It is too bad that the House can use the power given it by the Massachusetts Dclaration of Rights. I don’t think the writers of our constitution, like John Adams, had any inkling that a great great man could be elected governor. One with such a mandate people too.
<
p>Deval is Great
Deval is Good
Let Us Thank Him for Our Food. Amen
<
p>God Damn seperation of powers.
<
p>Don’t they know it’s Deval Patrick we are talking about?
<
p>God Damn the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
<
p>You can trust DEval. he is for Good.
I don’t think anybody is actually seriously arguing that the Legislature should not be an equal branch. I haven’t seen any cries to crown Deval King of Massachusetts, or anything else that would make the House subservient to him.
<
p>The issue at hand is: should the Speaker be so powerful? Should a man beholden only to the good people of the North End wield this much power over the rest of the Commonwealth?
<
p>My answer: No. But I tend to agree with Peter Porcupine above that we must be cautious of “solutions” to this problem, for we may be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.