The last few weeks have been pretty dismal for Speaker DiMasi: Vitale, Cashman, and software, oh my.
Well, what's our response? What do we need right now? What does Sal need right now? Is there overlap?
Speaker DiMasi often drives us nuts. He has seemed to be utterly allergic to new sources of revenue, particularly when Rick Lord says boo. He won't consider granting municipalities the ability to levy local meal taxes. He opposed many of the Governor's reasonable attempts to close corporate tax loopholes.
But in spite of some sentiment here, we've got to look at the realistic options. I'd like to suggest that Sal DiMasi is anything but the worst person we could have as Speaker.
- Health care: Some 300,000+ more people have health care in Massachusetts, largely because of his efforts. It isn't perfect by any stretch — and indeed its viability hangs by a thread — but it's the best health care law in the country right now. And ironically, back in 2006, DiMasi was the one trying to strengthen requirements making uninsuring companies contribute to the cost of the plan.
- Same-sex marriage: DiMasi showed considerable courage and leadership in bringing the legislature to another nation- and world-leading stance for basic decency.
- Casinos: DiMasi showed foresight and courage (perhaps even death threats?) in rejecting Gov. Patrick's ill-considered plan.
- Green energy: Again, DiMasi's green energy plan forms the nucleus of what should be a far-reaching and significant piece of legislation, if and when it's passed later this spring.
Perfect? Goodness no. Could we do worse than this? Ya think?
So maybe Sal needs something. A little credibility, some good press, an assurance to the public that his legacy will not fall into the Flaherty-Finneran mold. For instance, John McCain only got religion on campaign finance reform after being implicated in the Keating Five scandal. Now, I'm not going to vote for him, but the McCain-Feingold law is a really significant reform; and over the years, McCain's post-Keating work has served him spectacularly well in the press's and public's view.
Could Sal follow the McCain model, push for reformist policies after getting hurt by his own secretive methods? Why not?
So here are some ideas for Sal to burnish his reformer-cred:
- Create a strong, independent best-practices/oversight body for construction. If we've got $3 billion going out the door for new bridges, we'd damn well better be spending that money properly.
- Pro-consumer legislation, to wash off the taint of the ticket-reseller issue. For instance, promote honest-to-goodness competition in cable TV and cell phones. Outlaw anti-competitive contracts. Make our phone/internet/TV bills intelligible. Get Verizon to actually deliver on broadband in un-served areas of the state.
- Hey Sal, it's your health care law — protect it. Take on the special interests in health care cost control: Tell hospitals they can't charge for treating infections acquired in the hospital. Tell PhRMA companies they can't try to
bribeinfluence docs with sweet inducements. Go back to uninsuring businesses and tell 'em to finally pitch in for health care.
In other words, if DiMasi wants not to be seen as a tool of the insiders, wealthy, and well-connected … there's a clear way to do that. (Please chime in with better ideas in the comments — I know I'm forgetting any number of things.)
And on the process front, let's have some new rules:
- Give enough time for legislators and the public to read what they're voting on: Allow two weeks between when a bill is finalized in committee and the vote by the general membership.
- Allow time for open debate on the floor.
- Broadcast floor debates on the web.
In their recent op-eds, the Globe and Phoenix have essentially said, “Gosh, Sal's got to do things more openly.” That's well and good, but maybe there's an opportunity for actual substantive reform that goes beyond the person of Sal DiMasi. Since DiMasi seems to be in little actual legal danger, maybe we can use this moment constructively.
Why is Petro trying so hard to find a third speaker?
He had his run. A good run at that.
<
p>He should be looking for a soft landing now. Not knee dip in this high school lunch table crap that is the race for speaker.
you’ve endorsed my line of thought. I absolutely agree with you: there’s plenty of worse people who could be speaker right now, and some of them are duking it out to be next in line. I say stick with the Devil that we know because, while no where near perfect, he’s certainly been on the net a positive force for this state. I think we can successfully bargain with him to get more revenue options on the plate.
<
p>I’m not passing judgement on anyone. I will leave that to others. But we the people should expect and demand high standards of our elected officials.
<
p>The Lawrence Eagle Tribune had a great editorial about ethics on Beacon Hill. If we want good government, we should demand it to our represenatives.
<
p>Speakers do come and go, but the House seems to stay the same. Change is only incramental.
<
p>As I said before, if we need ethical leadership we should demand it. Someone like State Representative Ted Speliotis of Danvers would make us proud.
<
p>I’m sure though that leadership doesn’t interest him. And, by the way, I am not him.
<
p>As you can see from my posts regarding Senator John Kerry, no one would want my support anyway!
<
p>
First off, I agree with Charley almost 100% (I don’t agree with myself 100% so it’d be impossible to agree more.) All of this does, however, raise the question of vetting.
<
p>There’s been no shortage of articles speculating about whether DiMasi will leave due to his “ethical lapses.” However, I have yet to see any articles vetting the two leading candidates for Speaker should DiMasi vacate?
<
p>Are we to believe that Rogers and DeLeo are squeaky clean?
Some people need a villain. With no REpublicans worthy of the slot, it will have to be Sal. DiMasi will be “a tool of the insiders, wealthy, and well-connected” for some people, no matter what.
<
p>Rehabilitate Sal in the eyes of…whom? Burnish his “reformer cred” to please…whom? Self-declared reformers who want to attack him even though he is the reason marriage equality is dead as an issue? Make happy the prideful voters who’ve “checked back in” so they could slag him, even though he is the reason casinos are dead?
<
p>These voters dislike Sal on instinct…he’s been around for a while, he’s a backslapper, he doesn’t run on “vision” by flitting about the state. Why would Sal want to lose his old-school Democrats to go chasing self-important types around the state, demanding “changes” to quell damages from the attacks they cheerled?
<
p>Many of these are darn good ideas, Charley. Good ideas on their own merits, not as a public affairs strategy to sweet talk people who instinctively dislike DiMasi and likely always will.
… how about the rank-and-file of the House?
<
p>If DiMasi puts together a package of reforms that make the legislature look like it’s really emerging from the Big Dig era; if he makes a good-faith effort on a number of fronts, on behalf of consumers and ratepayers and taxpayers; and if the State House starts to really act like the people’s House …
<
p>… then all of that will reflect well on him, and on all the legislators associated with him. And it’ll further marginalize Rogers, DeLeo, et al in the process.
including Rogers and DeLeo.
… it wouldn’t make them Speaker. At least not now.
it would offer countless opportunities for any aspiring leader to demonstrate her/his ability to lead 159 assertive colleagues with strong opinions about almost everything, to agree on at least one thing……….they need/want to be able to say, “I played an important role in rules reform and opening up the decision making process in the House.”
that they’re motivated by such things.
<
p>Gov. Patrick tried to sell the local meal (and hotel occupancy) tax increases as means for municipalities to reduce property taxes. Perhaps Speaker DiMasi does not agree with shifting the costs of municipal services from those who own property to those who go out to eat or stay in a hotel. Perhaps Speaker DiMasi also didn’t like the fact that the bill proposed by Gov. Patrick only actually guaranteed property tax reductions for property owners over 70 years old. Perhaps Speaker DiMasi thought that all municipalities deserve property tax relief, not only the municipalities that are also benefiting from the increased property tax rate paid by a thriving restaurant and hotel industry. Using a local option tax to reduce the property tax burden is an interesting idea, however the bill proposed by Gov. Patrick is a miserable way to do that. Perhaps Speaker DiMasi will wait for Gov. Patrick to propose a non-terrible bill before he will consider it.
<
p>And perhaps Speaker DiMasi was waiting for the Corporate Tax Study Group to to complete its task before he would decide whether to support combined reporting. Perhaps Speaker DiMasi recognized that a group featuring people like Joe Donovan, Bob Tannenwald, Alan LeBovidge, and Steve Kidder would write a report worth reading before he decided how to approach a very complicated tax policy decision. Perhaps Speaker DiMasi was convinced after reading the report and decided to adopt the report’s conclusion that combined reporting should be implemented along with a “meaningful” reduction in the corporate excise tax rate.
<
p>I would consider these two excellent policy decisions by Speaker DiMasi, rather than reasons why he drives people “nuts.”
<
p>As an aside, you seem “utterly allergic” to actually learning about combined reporting, as you continue to resort to the “loophole” talking point. I’m sure you’re tired of hearing that, but I assure you not nearly as tired as I am of reading about “closing loopholes.” I would urge you to read the report here so you can gain a real understanding of what you’re supporting. http://www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/…
and of course, he did agree to jack the cigarette tax and come to an agreement on combined reporting. But it only came after a struggle.
<
p>I still don’t understand the objection to the local options tax as being unfair to those municipalities that don’t have restaurants/hotels. Why should they be able to dictate what Boston/Cambridge/Somerville/Northampton can or can’t do? I truly don’t get it. It’s an option.
<
p>Anyway, yes, I’ll read the report. But I will say that you spend of lot of pixels being frustrated, and not very many elucidating the issue. So sorry about that.
I remember Henry Ford II saying “Don’t complaint and don’t explain.”
<
p>If DiMasi spends his time and staff explaining, or complaining about everyone picking on him, or sending out blasts at being held to ethical standards – well, I think he hurts himself, and he is likely to be ending his run as speaker sooner rather then later.
<
p>If, instead, DiMasi presses for his child welfare overhaul [remember H 4333] which is now in conference committee, and focuses on economic recovery, and gets moving forward, visibly, and vigorously, he could not only ride this out but have a positive legacy.
<
p>All the ideas mentioned above are good, but there are several strong pieces of legislation [including H4333} with DiMasi’s sponsorship already moving.
<
p>If all his energy goes into spin, those initiatives are in trouble.
<
p>To me, the choice is clear: Go forward vigorously, or go down in a kind of vapid triage mode.
I don’t remember that promise being restricted to those over 70 or those in communities with thriving restaurant or hotel industries. This proposal restricts the slight potential property tax relief to only those citizens and only those communities. And the proposal doesn’t prevent the legislature from simply cutting the level of local aid by the amount of the increased local taxes. I object to the Gov. doing a poor job fulfilling his campaign promise while at the same time pandering to seniors and insulting himself from criticism for raising taxes because he would prefer to place the blame on the towns at the expense of better tax policy. If the Gov. is actually serious about reducing property taxes then he would propose a state-wide 1% increase in meals and hotel occupancy taxes and earmark that $ to towns that actually reduce property taxes.
<
p>I’ve seen support for the Gov.’s local option taxes used on this website as a barometer when measuring the performance Speaker DiMasi and other legislators, and when evaluating legislative candidates. This is poorly designed legislation that has very little chance of achieving its stated goal. When I see you as a community come out overwhelmingly in support of bad legislation based simply on it is “truthiness” then it is somewhat frustrating.
<
p>I have tried to make the case for combined reporting without resorting to the “loophole” garbage. You even mocked me in this post http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s… with your “oh no, don’t dare call it a loophole” before continuing to call it a loophole. If you are unwilling to learn then I’m not sure how I can elucidate the issue for you. But hey, I’ll keep trying. It seems like there is an aversion to critically evaluating Gov. Patrick’s tax proposals and presuming that he must be right on tax issues. I certainly don’t think he has earned such a presumption.
<
p>I believe you are conflating Patricks specific promise to increase the “senior circuit breaker” for home-owners (and esp those over 70) with several other specific promises regarding property taxes. So you remember correctly… the promisers were not, indeed, restricted in the manner you describe.
<
p>So… um… what where we talking about again… ?
to give towns the option to increase the meals and hotel occupancy tax by 1% on restaurants and hotels in their town. Gov. Patrick’s proposal earmarks 25% of that funding to reimburse towns that provide property tax abatements to citizens over 70 years old. This is entirely separate, and in addition to, the senior circuit breaker that was in place upon his taking office. His campaign promise was a general promise to reduce property taxes but his actual MPA proposal only guarantees that property tax reduction to the over 70 crowd. This post criticized Speaker DiMasi for not acting on a proposal by Gov. Patrick, and I am pointing out that a good reason for not acting on that proposal is that its a bad proposal.
<
p>That is what we were talking about.
<
p>Combined reporting is a method of nullifying tax-avoidance strategies… that is to say, it is a method of closing loopholes. Please… Don’t take my word for it, the MBPC was saying this just a few short
years ago… like in 2003
<
p>So…um… what’s your point?
does not merely nullify tax avoidance strategies. Combined Reporting measures a corporate group’s income based on all the unitary members of a controlled group. I have read all of MBPC’s reports and press releases on combined reporting. They try to simplify a complex tax proposal that they support and, in doing so, they use examples of some situations where tax planning strategies would be nullified. I would urge you to read the report I linked to in my previous post where some of the best tax minds in the state of MA describe combined reporting. They go much more in depth and they lay out a much better case for combined reporting than the MBPC has ever done without resorting to the “loophole” language.
<
p>My point is that an opportunity to have a public MA corporate tax policy debate has been sidelined because the Gov. and many others seem to rest their case on the fact that combined reporting does nothing but “close loopholes.” I think thats a shame.
C’mon, folks, health care is a life or death issue as well as one with huge economic implications. The MA healthinsurance law is fraud disguised as health reform. (see http://blog.hcfama.org/?p=1640… for others’ discussion of this fact)
<
p>Shouldn’t we here at BMG be refusing to buy into (or to be bought off about) defeatist thinking that tries to convince us that only certain kinds of reform are possible–the kinds of reform that keep private health insurance companies and big Pharma in the driver’s seat?
<
p>Improved Medicare-for-All is what Ted Kennedy has spent much of his life working for, including bill he filed not long ago to expand age-eligibility for Medicare gradually until the entire population would be covered. Let’s push for what’s right and what’s smart and demand improved Medicare-for-All NOW. Obama wants and needs us to create this groundswell, so let’s get on with it.
<
p>Please help at http://www.GuaranteedHealthcar… or http://www.Healthcare-Now.org . For state level reform see http://www.MassCare.org
<
p>Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) has a monthly Healthcare Reform/Medicare-for-All/Single Payer organizing conference call that happens to be tonight. Join us!
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Time: 9:00 pm EDT, 8 pm CDT, 7 pm MDT, 6 pm PDT
Conference Call #: (605) 990-0400 Code: 968483#