There’s no doubt that Sal DiMasi, John Rogers, and Bob DeLeo will be reelected this fall. The big question is which, if any, of them will be Speaker of the House.
This is a big and important question. With no functional Republican opposition, the House Speaker pretty much controls the agenda in the House, which seems to mean that nothing gets done unless the Speaker wants it to be done. We’ve seen over the last two years that the Speaker has the ability to single-handedly block high-profile initiatives from the Governor — casinos (yay!) and closing corporate tax loopholes (boo!) come to mind. (To his credit, the Speaker largely came around on the corporate tax loopholes, and we ended the session with quite a good series of changes to MA’s tax laws.)
Speaker DiMasi has been a good leader on some important issues. He had the most progressive views on health care when the health care bill was being assembled, and he was a real hero on preserving marriage. But he keeps running into big, big problems. Joan Vennochi recounts them in today’s Globe, and they boil down to two words: Cognos, and Vitale. The issues are serious enough that Attorney General Martha Coakley has opened an investigation, which guarantees that the issue will not go away anytime soon.
The would-be successors have their own problems. John Rogers recently paid a $30,000 “settlement” to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance to end an investigation into a peculiar real estate deal. Yet, today’s Globe reports that unanswered questions remain about the deal, and it appears from the story that Rogers may not have been entirely truthful in explaining how the deal worked. And Rogers, who came to prominence under the socially conservative ex-Speaker Tom Finneran, has in the past been unreliable (to say the least) on marriage and other important issues, though he did eventually come around.
And Bob DeLeo, who as recently as 2005 was described as “a little-known State House insider popular with colleagues”? Well, there’s the whole “intimidating your colleagues” thing, there’s serious questions about the fundraising of his top lieutenant, Thomas Petrolati, and there are allegations of pretty strong-armed tactics in lining up support. I don’t know much about DeLeo on the issues, since I’m not aware that he’s ever taken much of a stand on them (though he, along with Rogers and DiMasi, did vote against the anti-marriage amendment last year and in favor of repealing 1913 this year).
Can’t say it’s all that pretty a picture. And so, a question to the BMG community:
Who do you want to see as the next Speaker? Sal DiMasi, who has established a pretty solid progressive track record, but whose ethical issues continue to dog him? John Rogers, who also faces ethics problems and who may not be the progressive that DiMasi is? Bob DeLeo, whose tactics seem unusually aggressive and whose stands on the issues seem mysterious?
Is there another option? Should there be?
or
Ruth Balser
Jay Kaufman
Carl Sciortino
<
p>
<
p>I’m sure there are others; I’m most familiar with Boston metro. I want someone who will push [or not block!] issues that I care about, duh.
* More renewable energy, less electricity from oil and coal
* Mo’ better mass transit
* Elections reform [same day reg, less gerrymandering]
* More financial support for public universities
* A UMass law school
* Rein in lottery advertisement and high price scratch-off offerings
* Continued progress on health care access [increased business contribution, mo’ better regional clinics]
* Improve/expand the ‘drug rehab instead of prison’ process
<
p>That’s an unordered, incomplete list. Who will help get that done? That’s who I want!
I like Smizik but have a hard time picturing him in the thick of it wrangling house members.
<
p>Balser shouldn’t be speaker and Mayor of Newton at the same time.
<
p>Sciortino needs more time to build those relationships in the House. 2 terms isn’t enough. Eldridge could have also been good in a few years, but he’s taken the road to the Senate (knock on wood).
<
p>Byron Rushing could also be an interesting option. I would have said Bosley a while back, but he disappointed me this past year on corporate tax issues.
<
p>The more I think about it, the more I really like the idea of Speaker Kaufman. How can we make that happen?
I’m not sure if he’s best for speaker. He’s only been there 4 years and is sometimes a bit scatterbrained.
He had been a staunch advocate of the citizens health care constitutional amendment and had said he would support it wholeheartedly. He even had testimony prepared to argue in support of the amendment getting its 2nd ConCon vote, blasting the bogus rationale that “enough had been done already with the Chapter 58 individual mandaate insurance law”. One thing Smizik didn’t anticipate was getting approached during the ConCon by DiMasi’s lieutenants who proceeded to blackmail him, threatening to stop the final vote on his Safer Alternatives to Mercury Bill that Smizik had been laboring to pass in his committee for years. Well, the strong-arm tactics worked. Smizik was profusely apologetic as he explained to me what had gone wrong…tell that to all the people who’ve gone bankrupt due to getting sick (this happens to many who HAVE commercial health insurance), and to those living in enforced poverty, not able to take a small promotion or a raise b/c they’ll lose their subsidized coverage for themselves and their families. It is a sick sick system we have at present and we really could do a whole lot better. Learn more at http://healthcareformass.org and for national reform at http://healthcareforamericanow…
His years-old Public Policy Forum is a great public service and I believe he’s supported all the progressive positions on reforming “root-cause” policy issues.
<
p>He supported the clean elections law 100%
He supported the health care constitutional amendment 100%
He supports equal marriage rights 100%
etc etc
<
p>DiMasi is NOT PROGRESSIVE ENOUGH on health care reform (despite what David might say) and we’re all being bankrupt, people are suffering, and some are dying prematurely because of it. Take a look at the front page of today’s Glob on health care costs http://www.boston.com/news/loc… and then don’t miss the $10,000 infomercial by non-profit public charity Partners Health Care (of the same ilk as MA BCBS) on the OpEd page. DiMasi’s like all the others that make it to “positions of power”; they end up doing the bidding of the private insurance companies and the rest of the medical-industrial complex in this state. Their actions harm the rest of us and are financially raping Massachusetts residents many times over.
<
p>DiMasi voted against the citizens health care amendment that sought to bring some sanity–and humanity–to our state’s health care system and to lead the way for the nation to enact “comprehensive, affordable, and EQUITIBLEY FINANCED health insurance FOR ALL RESIDENTS”. The current individual mandate law is crappy policy and it’s disgraceful that so many policy folks bask in the limelight and say “It’s the best we could do”. That’s dishonest.
<
p>Follow the money trail on any issue to grasp the real dynamics and not just the spin. Former Senator Jarrett Barrios is now making a hefty salary from MA Blue Cross Blue Shield giving them political cover for their role in raping this state and harming scores of people who can’t afford the “market-driven” prices of commercial profit-driven insurance. Barrios never lifted a finger to advance the health care amendment despite giving lip service that he would do so. He only voted yes at the last minute (his was #15 of 17 Yes votes, 21 No votes in the Senate) to advance the hc amendment to its second and final ConCon vote, when it was safe to vote yes knowing there were enough no votes already to kill the amendment. You didn’t hear Barrios making any noise about the legislature breaking the law by denying the hc amendment its second required vote, now did you? (see http://healthcareformass.org for the 2008 SJC ruling stating that the MA Lege has broken the law)
Then Barrios skipped off to be on the payroll of MA BCBS…
<
p>Soon-to-be former Senator Dianne Wilkerson voted no (there 80 No’s and 75 Yes votes in the house) and blocked the health care amendment from receiving its final required ConCon vote so it could advance to all voters statewide. Wilkerson’s multiple ethical and legal lapses have made her very susceptible to the political pressures brought on by the big money interests.
<
p>What a pathetic bunch with pathetic so-called leaders.
and a credit to the Commonwealth and much more progressive than the alternatives.
It really is a shame when elected officials abuse their power, and their agendas’ are purely for their party affiliation and/or themselves, not the good of the state. It really is a sad state of affairs in our political system. Both on the state and federal level. The conflict of interest between elected officials and lobbyist is a major part of the problem.
Read this post. Byron Rushing, Jamie Eldridge, Jay Kaufman, Carl Sciortino are all honest progressives, and there are honest conservatives alike.
Either of these two seem much more likely to represent house progressives in a speaker fight than committee chairpeople like Smizak, Kaufman or Balser, since Harkins and Rushing are already members of house leadership.
<
p>Harkins, of Needham, is majority whip, and Rushing, of Boston’s South End, is the assistant Majority leader, behind Rogers.
<
p>I believe either would be a tremendous speaker.
Our political system needs an overhaul. The Major conflict of interest between lobbyist and politicians is a BIG part of the problem. Then the fact that politicians do what’s beneficial for their party affiliation, rather then what is beneficial for their constituents. Which is their duty.
As a freshman legislator, I have to say, I haven’t seen any of the strong arm tactics attributed to Bob DeLeo in the lead article in this string. I was pleased when he announced his interest and signed up after the most gentle and positive of invitations by a colleague.
<
p>The Bob DeLeo I’ve come to know is low key, humble and all about getting things done. I attribute these “strong arm” allegations to a combination of high feelings and hard spin from people who have chosen another candidate.
<
p>At this point, most of us in the House have looked ahead and made some kind of commitment to a future possible successor to the present speaker, but that is no comment on Sal DiMasi — legislators are always looking ahead. Most of us in the House who have a progressive orientation genuinely like the speaker and greatly appreciate his progressive leadership on a great many important issues.
Rep. WB; since you dropped by BMG, perhaps you could enlighten us as to who the Representative is that is holding up all informal session legislation until Rep. Scaccia relents and gives a liquor license to one of his constituents. Democracy at work…shame on him.
Not my first post or last.
<
p>Really can’t shed light on the Westwood informal problems. It’s not a story that I understand — I get my news on this the same way you do.
<
p>/w.
I like the daily negotiations…’Hey, I got a fiftieth wedding anniversary and an Eagle Scout…can they pass before you shut it down? I’ll owe you one…”
Westwood Station dispute escalates
And I do trust you to report accurately – and I know you personally as a hard worker who says what he thinks even when you know it isn’t always what I want to hear.
David,
Your assessment of the choices puts things in perspective. Given the choice between keeping DiMasi or opting for Rogers or DeLeo, the speaker-wannabees-in-waiting, DiMasi comes out ahead on leadership skills, promoting progressive issues and the ability to balance a budget without turning to casino gambling. Not easy these days. Deval and DiMasi have been working together over the past few months to accomplish some progressive victories, and it is important for that to continue.
<
p>DiMasi’s friends have gotten him some bad “association” publicity but the same could be said for Treas. Cahill or Rep. Rogers or frankly any politician who has to raise money from “friends and strangers” to get elected to office. Until they fix the campaign finance system that will be true of all of them. As for DeLeo, yick, thick…overrates himself, not a leader.
<
p>Given his record on progressive issues I care about, I would rather bet on DiMasi to reflect my views than any of the alternatives that would be in this contest. (Many of those mentioned on this thread are “in-your-dreams” suggestions…Reps who could never muster the votes to win and don’t have the toughness it requires to do that…as progressive and “nice” as they might be)
<
p>Ernie Boch III: If you think I’m wrong, say so…
<
p>
http://ryanpadams.blogspot.com…
<
p>All this “who’s next?” discussion is rather moot, since Sal controls his own destiny. He’s not going to go until he wants to go. And, honestly, that’s a good thing… because there’s no one who could win the job that’s as progressive as Sal – and the other guys have baggage that’s as bad or worse than Cognos… and the other issues the Globe, et al, are trying to pin on Sal are spurious or guilt by association. I have not been impressed by the Globe’s coverage.
<
p>The bottom line is that the only people who could get the votes to replace Sal, should he choose to leave, are people who have scandals and baggage that’s bigger and worse. The news will again have a field day and it will hurt the democratic brand and our ability to pass progressive legislation (both the stories and the potential new speakers).
<
p>Sal’s been a progressive hero for this state who’s actually created real change while he’s been Mr. Speakah, so I’m quite content to see him there as long as he’s keeping up the good work, at least until there’s hard evidence that he broke the law… which doesn’t currently exist. People should also keep in mind that he’s dealing with all this crap because of his opposition to casinos.
…enemies out in the open might be a relief.
Sal is the best of the three that David put forward, but I would hardly call him a progressive “hero.” His opposition to closing corporate loopholes without a reduction in the corporate tax rate is evidence of that.
-Protected marriage equality? Check.
-Got us the closest thing to universal health insurance that exists in this country? Check.
-Helped preside over a whole slew of new green bills that made Massachusetts a leader in attacking Global Warming? Check.
-Set aside personal differences to compromise on ending costly loopholes, to raise hundreds of millions for the state? Check.
<
p>And that’s all within 2-3 years, most this past year. That’s the closest thing to “progressive hero” in terms of leadership that we’ve got, at least in this country.
<
p>In terms of lowering the corporate tax rate – honestly, for companies that didn’t have the loopholes, the tax rate was a little on the high side. So, small businesses won, while big businesses were forced to pay their fair share. That’s sensible, pragmatic leadership I can get behind, especially when the bill earns this state hundreds of millions in the process.
<
p>So, yes, I strongly approve of the job that Speaker DiMasi has done. Anyone who looks at this rationally – in terms of accomplishments – should too. This state has gone further in two years than we probably did in the ten before it in terms of implementing strong policy.
I don’t think he had “personal differences” with the Governor — he had a policy difference. He was opposed to closing loopholes, and then set up a corporate-dominated panel (none of your “small businesses” had a seat) to “study” the idea. Yes, he eventually relented, and in the end we got a piece of legislation that was on balance beneficial. But I don’t commend his for relenting, because I expected him to favor closing he loopholes from the beginning.
<
p>That said, I agree there are several other things he did that were very positive, too. Still, I would say the good things he’s done have mostly been reactive to circumstances, not as much proactive.
<
p>Anyway, I think we basically agree that he’s been a good speaker, probably the best that could feasibly attain that position. I just thought the term “hero” was a big strong.
Sal can do whatever he wants, because he is a democrat. That is the problem with this state. Let the criminals run the state house as long as they are for the liberal party.
If he was a Republican you all would be crying at the top of every mountain.
Ask Ernie Boch III…if GOP can’t win seats statewide, they will never get the shot at having a GOP Speaker….they will always be the whining chorus singing their sad tune from the sidelines…where is Ernie Boch III?
When there’s hard evidence implementing Sal in any of this, then you can come back and claim “this is the problem with this state.”
<
p>By the way, I wasn’t aware we had it so bad… being one of the most prosperous states in the country, with the best education, health care and an infrastructure that, while it’s aging, is leaps and bounds better than many other parts of this country.
It saddens me to have to point this out, but, like Charley on the MTA, you seem to have “drunk the Koolaid” and are making (unintentional, I’m sure) false statements glorifying the Massachusetts health care system. MA DOES NOT have “the best” health care in the country, for christ’s sake!!!! Why can’t people look beyond the spin for the actual facts?!
<
p>MA has the most expensive, but not the best in terms of quality or outcomes, in our state’s health care system.
<
p>And re Ry’s statement defending his use of the descriptor “hero” for DiMasi (“That’s the closest thing to “progressive hero” in terms of leadership that we’ve got, at least in this country.) “. Well that’s just another sad and misleading statement if you’ve got to change the definition of “hero” to lower it to standards that will fit a current politician who has provided VERY important leadership on some discrete issues. But in full measure, hero? I think not.
<
p>(Yes, I am very angry and disturbed by what the so-called leaders of this state and this country have wrought on so many good, hardworking people who are without moneyed connections hence without much of a political voice. Where is our collective sense of fairness, justice, of just plain decency???? Maybe it is returning with Obama’s candidacy…)
I recently read the various Globe articles on DiMasi as a group – and I am amazed at the lack of direct link or connection to DiMasi – The Globe articles seem to be a collection of inuendo, unnamed sources and if that had happened instances – frankly I would have expected more from the Globe reporting – but as you guys know I beleive the Globe has had a vendetta against DiMasi ever since he led the fight against casinos.
<
p>I read Dan Bosley’s post on “that other” blog and have to agree with it – (i don’t know how to link or I would have)
<
p>I urge DiMasi to make his case publicly – I think the Globe has gone to far and his political enemies have capitized on these stories to cast a shadow on his Speakership – if he doesnlt fix this soon he will be darkened by these stories – pereception becomes reality!
link
that my editors, when I wrote for my college newspaper, wouldn’t have accepted such shoddy reporting as that Globe (hit)piece.
<
p>I tire of the Globe.
<
p>I also agree that it’s time for the Speaker to be more vigorous in his defense. 9 times out of 10 in politics, it’s better just to let things go and ride out the storm, but due to various reasons, these stories won’t go away, so he really should make his case publicly.
The Speaker should not use his position to favor certain colleagues or legislation. This requires a rule change to have committee chairs elected by the House rather than appointed. Office space should be allocated by seniority, lottery, or committee assignment. Any legislation that passes out of committee should be brought to the floor for a debate and vote.
Does anyone think there’s any way that any of these reforms could ever be accomplished? If yes, how, and if not, why not?
<
p>Why haven’t I heard of these before–or thought of them myself, d’uh–they seem like such common sense reforms. Do other states have anything like this to temper abuse of power by their Speakers?
<
p>I know many states have part-time legislatures and I think that could help here in MA, including to bring about better transparency. If the lege wasn’t able to drag things out so darned long, many issues would be much easier for the public to follow hence to demand accountability on.
<
p>Thanks, Christopher!!
So many benefit, or are simply just accustomed to, the current system that it’s possible that nothing short having the majority of the House being freshmen would accomplish this. (I’m not advocating term limits, BTW.) Every once in a while a Speaker becomes so tyrannical that rule changes are forced through. I don’t know about states, but at the federal level Speakers Reed and Cannon about 100 years ago provoked such reforms in the US House. In my university’s Student Senate, all committee chairs and members were elected by the whole body via secret ballot, so no favoritism could be shown. The British House of Commons uses the Speaker model I prefer. Model Congresses in which I participated all adhered to the concept that if it passes committee it gets to the floor in the order in which it was reported out of committee.
<
p>I don’t want a part-time legislature. I’d prefer deliberation rather than rush and I want our legislators to devote their full energies and focus to the complex task of governing. I realize that even now some legislators have other jobs, but my ideal is that they don’t because it would be too easy to create at least the appearance of conflict of interest in some cases between legislating for the common good and one’s personal line of work. It would also exclude certain people from being able to serve.