A few days back the Globe ran this op-ed about recent report on the deficiency of Massachusetts infrastructure, something Governor Patrick has been addressing through some of his capital plans.
The op-ed said:
According to a report commissioned by the Massachusetts Transportation Investment Coalition, 585 bridges in the state are structurally deficient, the most heavily traveled being the Interstate 95 span that crosses the Newburyport Turnpike in Lynnfield. A stretch of North Road in Westfield is number one on the list of deteriorated highways. There may be no immediate safety hazard, but with truck and automobile transportation essential to the state economy, no highway should linger in substandard condition.
Of course overall the transportation finance shortfall is supposed to be around $15-19 billion over the next decade or so. So how we gonna pay for that? Borrow a good deal of course, potentially fall behind further and let our roads fall apart, hurting our economy in the process, or find some new revenues to start addressing the problem.
Thing is – its not just Massachusetts that is in trouble with our infrastructure. The whole damn country is falling behind. The States can’t meet the challenge without some serious federal assistance. Thus, we need a President who will drive a “Rebuild America” agenda with some serious dollar signs attached to it. Obama says he will and has a plan for it. McCain don’t. Another clear choice.
But it strikes me, that a big challenge both here and nationally is how we can get “we the people” to a place where we are willing to sacrifice and pay for the common good. Between the infrastructure shortfall, the need to address climate change (and the reality of higher energy costs that come with it – a price worth paying in the near-term to prevent the worst case that could come with a much higher cost later), expand health care with its rising costs, and afford to take care of an increasingly aging society we have some tough choices ahead of us. Leadership will be necessary to see us through, credible leadership that convinces people about the scale of the challenge and what we need to do, even if it requires more money/work from all of us so our children can reap the rewards. The type of leadership that can inspire people to recognize their interest in working with others and contributing and most importantly can get people to believe that a collective solution through government is desirable and achievable.
Few politicians have ever been able to rally people to meet great challenges – save in war or during severe economic crisis. The difficulty today is that many of the challenges we face now are not immediate events but slowly ticking timebombs that without concerted and lasting action could slowly erode our standard of living and quality of life. Its easy to rally people to meet an acute event – like a 9/11 (even though Bush decided to just tell people to shop instead of serve). The great leaders – like Lincoln – can mobilise people for the long-haul and make them believe in the value of their action.
John McCain talks a good game on sacrifice and no doubt has made real ones himself, but he asks nothing of the general populace today – just more of the good men and women in uniform. Obama touches on the “we” quality and the need for collective grassroots action, but as much as I dig him, he has yet to talk about the challenges we face in a way which lays out clearly the sacrifices that may be required to address them.
Time will only tell whether our leaders can get people to “ask what they can do for their country and not what their country can do for them”. Talking about shared sacrifice may not be winning politics, but it may come whether we like it or not so getting to work on addressing these issues before they get worse wouldn’t be such a bad thing. A political leader who can get people to accept such a conversation in the first instance (and action in the second) would truly define what political leadership is all about.
when Deval took over now there is a 1.3 billion$ short fall. That’s a 2.5 Billion dollar reversal of fortune in just one year. Maybe he should consider restoring some of the cuts that Romney made instead of spending like a drunken sailor. You want the ” public to sacrifice ” well the DEVAL, the state legislature and the U.S. congress should lead by example. They should cut the fat, stop the pork and do away with earmarks altogether.
$1.2 billion surplus? Care to back that up? Even Romney admits that the billion-dollar surplus that did exist was well-spent before Patrick took the oath of office. I know the surplus was a big selling point of the Muffy campaign, but at the time she was selling the billion-dollar surplus, there was no billion-dollar surplus.
<
p>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03…
that there was no surplus when Bubba Clinton left office? The only thing that he had was fuzzy math and the excessive use of social security funds to balance the budget. That’s not to mention the fact that he was riding a wave of Twelve years of Republican Economic policy.
<
p> The fact is the budget was balanced when Romney left office and he had demonstrable revenue surpluses for three consecutive years, and now, The Deval is digging deeper and deeper holes. Maybe he should return the drapes and the Caddy and make some budget cuts.
So now the budget was “balanced” when Romney left office? Which is it, a $1.2 billion surplus or a balanced budget?
<
p>Bubba is irrelevant; if you’d like to start a thread about Clinton myth vs. reality, feel free.
<
p>As for Romney, he cooked the books. From the link I provide above:
<
p>
<
p>So everyone buys the myth that Patrick inherited a surplus, when in reality it was probably not even balanced. Not to mention, Patrick had to figure out to pay for the health care law that he inherited, which Romney never had to fund.
<
p>But yet it was Patrick who put us into deficit because he bought drapes and a Cadilac – oh, OK.
and a revenue surplus are not mutually exclusive. You can have a balanced budget for the current fiscal year and a revenue surplus from the previous year maybe you should familiarize yourself with economics so we can continue the discussion.
<
p>I mentioned “Bubba” simply to make the point that when it suits you (liberals) you tout surpluses but when they actually happen and a Republican is responsible you do your damndest to poke holes. Did I mention that “Bubba Clinton’s ” Surplus was a projected surplus and never materialized. Who’s the chef?
<
p> Romney had three consecutive years of higher than projected revenues. Facts can be awfully inconvenient.
If facts are so inconvenient to my comment, please show me what the actual budget surplus was on the date Governor Patrick took office.
For F/Y ending ’07, 6 months after Governor Patrick took office, there was a net transfer to the rainy day fund. i.e. a surplus for the F/Y ending 07. That was the Romney Administration budget.
<
p>Furthermore, if you recall, Romney announced budget cuts in December ’06 totally approx $500 million, which if not reversed by Patrick would have resulted in a greater surplus.
<
p>Now, to your question, was there a surplus on January ’07 inaugeration day? Interim governmental statements are nearly impossible to come by, so the question you ask is probably impossible to answer, and probably also irrelevant.
But relevant to the talking point that “Patrick inherited a $1.2 billion dollar surplus on day one”.
<
p>This wasn’t a case of me defending Patrick as much as it was to set the record straight. I purposely included the line in my above blockquote that Tuerek “believed that Mr. Patrick was exaggerating the state’s fiscal problems”. People can criticize Patrick all they want, the budget is far from perfect, I just prefer to keep it closer to the factual relm rather than the imaginary.
<
p>Romney’s cuts may have resulted in a greater surplus, but I don’t know if Massachusetts would have been willing to pay the cost of the lost services. Maybe we would, I don’t remember exactly how the debate went. But instead of Patrick being criticized by the Kyllacons for spending, he’d be criticized by the left for gutting services to people who are the neediest. And we all know the kyllacons aren’t voting for Patrick anyway.
If there was a surplus on Romney’s last day as Gov. Then it was there on The Deval’s first day. Stands to reason, NO?
<
p>Romney’s cuts were not hurting any of the “neediest” that’s why we as a state were in better financial shape during his 4 years than we are at the end of The Deval’s first. WE wont vote for The Deval because He isn’t a fiscally responsible Gov. and He has proven that since day one.
Show me where there was a surplus on Romney’s last day. It’s a simple question; you repeat this claim as if it’s gospel truth and give no back up. I just want to know what evidence supports this claim and how much this surplus was.
Its easy to balance the state budget when you’re willing to throw the cities and towns of the state under the bus in the process. By slashing local aid, Romney tossed the debate about priorities and sacrifice over the wall to local officials. Romney gets to run around the country bragging about his ‘balanced budget’ and we’re left with underfunded schools, libraries, and public safety departments.
I think sacrificing for the common good is not only noble, but a time-honored, well-written and well-discussed idea; it’s been with us since the 18th century. Each generation at some point, has had to step up to the plate and sacrifice their youth, their time, and their treasure.
<
p>But its extraordinarily difficult to ask people to sacrifice when they don’t trust the political leaders in charge. Each new scandal chips away at the collective resolve to care about the “common wealth.” With elections hijacked by big donor corporations and special interests – when even the “change you can believe in” candidate does an about face on campaign financing…how can we dare ask people to sacrifice? On a local level, the Big Dig has done nothing to assuage the concerns of Mass. residents who consider the money (billions) wasted, a life lost, and no one really held accountable but for a pittance of this public travesty. People should be in jail, never mind having to pay the money back. Let me also include the Halliburton scandal – the dissection of that unholy involvement has yet to be fully undertaken.
<
p>When our leaders stop the “me first” theme of their own lives, and start modeling something that resembles putting the common good first – then maybe it will be appropriate to ask people to sacrifice.
I hate to be so cynical about it – but how do we ask people to sacrifice at all for the benefit of the common good – when it’s actually to the benefit of politicians, their friends, families and associates, corporations, and special interests who benefit? For instance, there was an article in yesterday’s Globe about the double-dipping of administrative educators, how they are retiring and then getting lucrative contracts to stay in education, very often in the same role, while keeping their pensions. Asking the taxpayers to front any more money “for the children” with this nonsense going on is repulsive. I saw this first hand in Stoneham, with the superintendent of schools “retiring” while staying on the job with a very nice contract….at the same time, there were talks of an over-ride. The school committee threatened to cut sports, leading to a huge outcry; the selectmen wound up providing funding through the trash fee. People are just tired of this stuff and until there’s real reform at every level, I wouldn’t bank on much “sacrifice.”
Important post! But I kinda wish you didn't use the word sacrifice.
I think we need more active civic engagement which I sometimes define as a willingness to work together with neighbors and other residents in the decision making processes of our government to figure out how we strengthen it and how we pay for it.
I know a lot of leaders at the state and local level who already working hard through government to repair and reform the public structures that educate our children, protect and produce our clean water, dispose and recycle our waste, construct and repair our roads and bridges etc etc. And many of them are reading this post and are also contributors to BMG reality based conversations about politics and policy. Just another path to informed participation I think.
ONE Massachusetts is working with hundrends of local community activists — real civic warriors — and celebrating others, like the lady from Holbrook and the gentleman from West Bridgewater, who are deep into conversations with their friends and neighbors about what kind of government we want and how to pay for it.
How many are aware that the Speaker’s salary is under $90k – while a law firm like WilmerHale starts first year associates at about $160k?
<
p>Public service in this state IS a financial sacrifice.
<
p>I note that when Robert Havern, who had represented Arlington in the State Senate left office, his salary was $78,000.00 k after 20 years!
<
p>The current double-dipping Acting Principal of the middle school in Arlington takes home $196.00 k. How crazy is this?
<
p>Believe me, to afford to be a legislator, one must:
<
p>1. Be too young to have a mortgage; or
<
p>2. Be retired and already receiving a pension; or
<
p>3. Be a [dreaded words] trust fund baby; or
<
p>4. Be a millionaire in your own right, from a business; or
<
p>5. Work another job too, as well as having a working spouse.
then why don’t we have a greater turnover? Some of these guys are so entrenched, you couldn’t get them out of the state house with a chisel, a jar of vaseline and a stout piece of rope.
<
p>After the “job” that some of these guys have done – they should be paying US instead of the reverse. We need reform or we need term limits. Whatever it is – we need something.
come out of politics with a far greater net worth than they started out with? That’s some great sacrifice.