And the sales tax? Well that gem is tucked into a little bill called the state budget. I try not to bet on these things, but common sense says the more than $26 billion state budget might be a little harder to negotiate in its entirety than the three reform bills – even with no money to spend. Wild card alert: Legislative leaders could be so ticked off that the Governor is already running a general election campaign with them as the bad guys that they hold up the three reforms just to force the Governor’s hand.
But, that wild card possibility aside, there’s another reason for the Corner Office to be hopeful on the tax debate this morning. The Senate included some of the Governor’s so-called local option tax hikes in its budget bill – allowing cities and towns to raise the meals and hotel taxes.
These provisions, which haven’t passed a reluctant House in two years, could be a big, fat bargaining chip for the Legislature. If Murray and DeLeo say to Patrick that he’ll get his local option taxes if he shelves the rhetoric and signs the sales tax, the reform before revenue threat could quickly evaporate.
Patrick certainly seemed ready to shoot when he pulled the veto threat. But, for now anyway, it looks more likely that he won’t have to pull the trigger – or risk a backfire.
<
p>Should read:
All they care about is “go along to get along”… and that goes for internal and external perspectives. Internally, they all fall in line behind the leadership to get their earmarks, “leadership” stipends, and preferred offices and parking spots. They just want to move up to the next “spot” in line.
<
p>Externally, they only listen to organized groups who will yelp the loudest when they are threatened… so a broad-based tax is preferred to narrowly tailored taxes regardless of the policy implications, “reforms” are written by the people who will be reformed to ensure they are toothless, and line items for politically powerful groups are restored (Quinn Bill, public employee healthcare, e.g.) while those for the most vulnerable are gutted.
Why has this not moved like greased lightening through the “reluctant” legislature when the battle cry is “fair” taxes?
That’s a good question, HeartlandDem.
<
p>I’m not sure what happened to the telecom loophole. There was a court decision last year which was widely seen as having the same impact as the Governor’s proposal but I know there was some doubt about that from the Gov’s office and they wanted the Legislature to do it anyway.
<
p>I can’t immediately find any recent news stories. I’m sure someone in the BMG community can enlighten us. It might well have been a part of what the Senate did last night.
<
p>
according to Rep. Jen Benson on yesterday’s podcast at http://www.LeftAhead.com, at least some towns are actually already collecting the telecom money and holding it in escrow. If the case wins, they get it… if they don’t, it goes back. I’m not sure how that would or does work, I didn’t ask a follow up on it. People are free to listen and take away from it what they will.
the Legislature has shown themselves to be ‘What’s in it for me’ cowards. They picked the one tax that would annoy the most people, but would be easiest to vote for, then try to put it behind them. The governor should stand by his words, and veto the bill, even if it seems to have a built in override margin. Hold their feet to the fire and make them register the vote to raise the tax while failing to pass meaningful reform and savings plans. I guess they figure that even without reforms, if they override and get tossed out of office as a result, a swell pension deal still exists for them. Sweet.
politics and the real needs of the State. And between the self-interest versus shared interests of the players in this dance and how they perceive the benefits and risks of cooperation versus conflict.
<
p>There are two likely options here.
<
p>The first and most likely is for the major players, after all the shots and countershots, to find common ground so they can all save some face and save the State. In this scenario, they pass the reform bills in some manner, the Guv signs the sales tax into law and they all claim victory. The benefits to the players here are that the State Government will look like its working, that problems are being solved and change is being made. All the players can walk away with relationships intact. The risks for all of course come from the public aversion to tax increases in general, and their likely cynicism about any so-called reform measures, particularly if they turn out to be less than advertised or actually weaken some current institutions, such as the Senate Ethics Bill would.
<
p>A second option is where the players decide that conflict is in their own best interests and that despite it, the State can muddle through. Under this scenario, the Guv can’t get meaningful reform measures to his desk, decides to veto the sales tax and is subsequently overriden. The benefits are there for each player in their way, but their are massive risks to each.
<
p>For the Governor, he gets to stand on principle against an entrenched Beacon Hill establishment. He gets to veto an unpopular tax hike. He can go to the voters with his independence intact. But, he could look weak if overriden, which would be likely. For a Democratic Governor it would have to be a worse outcome to be overriden on such a major issue then it was for GOP Governors. Patrick would also potentially be risking a lasting breach with the legislature, jeopardizing any matters he was hoping to pass down the line, and with another budget cycle to go through the next year. It is unclear whether he would be rewarded by the voters for his independence or just seen as a failure. Voters upset about a tax increase are not likely to see his veto as important if it happens anyway.
<
p>For the legislature this path holds less benefit and less risk. They are already on the record for the sales tax so not likely to take much more heat in overriding the Governor on it. Failure to pass reforms could hurt them, but the public already thinks the institution morally bankrupt even though tending to like individual local legislators and continuously sending them back to the Hill anyway. Given the pathetic state of the GOP in Mass, most legislators are unlikely to face serious challenges because of these issues. The legislature will also get to say programs were saved by the sales tax increase and go back to districts with some extra cash.
<
p>So given these two options and the benefits and risks to all the players, I think Patrick is in the weaker position and faces the most risks if he cannot get an option one. Pulling out the veto threat was not necessarily a bluff but if the legislators call him on it they can put a big dent in his political prospects. Patrick will have to go through with his veto to the sales tax if he can’t get reform bills to his desk – at least the ethics one. Forcing a veto and then overriding him will make Patrick look weak. He’ll have no reforms to show for his convictions and a tax hike on his watch to boot.
<
p>So will the legislature hang the Governor out to dry – their party leader and likely standard bearer in the 2010 election? Its hard to know. I’m sure they want him to think they might. If Patrick continues to paint them as the problem they may very well do it. But, I still think they will pull back from that, give him his reforms, get a signed sales tax hike and move on together, if not hand-in-hand, but at least with guns holstered. They will then bear the voters potential wrath as one.
<
p>
Let’s see if I understand this: the legislature will refuse to reform their corrupt ways, vote a tax increase that hits everyone, and they consider that teaching the Governor a lesson? Under those circumstances, if he actually ran against the Legislature as a corrupt organized crime gang, he’s be re-elected in a landslide.
<
p>Please, please, don’t throw me in the briar patch!
<
p>Of course, that would require a minimum of testitular fortitude.
Patrick “turned up the heat” today on this issue, according to State House News Service. Check out the whole story at http://www.statehousenews.com (subscription required).
<
p>But here’s the money quote, from his statement in response to the comments of Rep. Joe Wagner, D-Chicopee, who declared the gas tax off the table, for now:
<
p>”This really isn’t about State House dynamics between the Governor and the Legislature – the public could care less about that,” Patrick said in a statement to the News Service. “What they do care about – particularly those families struggling to find a job or keep one, or pay for their home or their kids’ education – is being asked to pay more for the status quo. To ask them to dig deeper into their pockets for higher taxes without first adopting meaningful reforms is thumbing our nose at them.”
<
p>The question is, as raised above, will this current round of positioning the Legislature as do-nothing on reform continue when he gets some reform bills on his desk? Or does he declare victory and use it to run for reelection?
<
p>
The question is what will he get, if anything. I guess time will tell …
“This isn’t about how my institutional opponents are crushing me, it’s about how I’m going to keep returning to the same failed strategy that’s letting them crush me. You see, I’m confusing how I won the primary with how I should govern. In any case, by continuing in this direction I’ll have the raw materials for some whiny commercials I can make for my re-election campaign.”
I once referred to you as the “ever wise Sabutai”. Although you continue to exhibit wisdom on a frequent basis, when the subject turns to the Governor’s relationship with the legislature, you seem to be blinded by some deep rooted hostility toward Deval Patrick. Read the surrounding posts. It appears that people are beginning to “get it” about our legislature’s ineptitude. There is a groundswell of dissatisfaction.
<
p>Can’t you at least acknowledge that, just perhaps, some of the Governor’s actions, including appealing directly to the voters, might have helped this come about?
I’m beginning to worry that the consistent kicking of hard decisions into the next session is a structural problem with legislatures. To get intelligent legislation, it seems, we must have a highly informed citizenry — or, failing that, powerful mass movements. Instead, we have a bored, apathetic, barely informed citizenry that easily falls prey to sound bites, resentment, and conspiracy theories.
<
p>That set up rewards legislative cowardice.
The iron triangle:
<
p>1: Official is elected, supported by Unions/Banking/Gay/Soccer Moms… each a special interests with varying degrees of power.
<
p>2: Elected official wants to be seen as doing something, and something always means spend money.
<
p>3: He spends money which by definition builds additional bureaucracy that will benefit the special interests.
<
p>4: Meanwhile, the Official also support legislations that is friendly towards the special interest group. They in turn lobby and spend money to influence the bureaucrats to write the legislation to favor their own interests.
<
p>The only solution, IMHO was that of Thomas Jefferson. We need a revolution to shake out the bureaucrats. Maybe the recession is the revolution, and the 2010 budget is the shaking.
<
p>I think your standards are a little high, and I assume that by intelligent legislation you mean legislation that addresses a community “problem” with a fact based effective affordable policy solution.
<
p>Actually all we need are residents who know who their elected officials are, who are reasonably informed of the current public policy debates in their community and state through the media or civic organizations and —this is key—who care enough about one or more of the current public policy debates to share their opinions about the optional solutions with their elected officials.
<
p>Sometimes these folk do this on their own, sometimes, and I suspect most often, they are contacted by their civic or non profit membership organization with additional information, a deeper analysis and some suggested messages.
<
p>I have some anecdotal evidence from Legislators that there has been a steadily rising uptick in constituent calls about the need for revenues since the Governor’s first 9C cuts last October and January. A big surge came as more and more towns began to hold budget hearings this spring and residents began to understand how the shortfall in state revenues was impacting their communities. Now we have a full blown public debate with lots of available opinion message vehicles from Letters to the editor to blogs, to demonstrations to lobby days.
<
p>And frankly I think most grassroots folk follow the budget process from point to point — urging first the Governor, then their Rep, then their Senator to find some new “fair” revenues sources and restore the programs they care about.
<
p>They dismiss the dueling between the Governor and the Legislator as silly shenanigans typical of politicians trying to take the credit for themselves and assign the blame to somebody else.
<
p>Two weeks ago these organized engaged residents heard from their Rep, whom they probably know personally, that the House had partially solved the problem, and had passed an ethics reform bill, a transportation reform bill and a pension reform bill.
<
p>Meanwhile, they may have even attended one of the Governor’s community meetings to listen to him or one of his top staff, whom they might know personally, about the Governor’s revenue proposals and the Administration’s point of view about revenues and reforms.
<
p>Next week they will hear from their Senator, whom they may also know personally, they they have partially solved the problem and promise that the House and Senate will be working together and offer their joint solution to the Governor, along with their joint solution for pension reform, for ethics reform and for transportation reform.
<
p>Any subsequent actions by the Governor, to offer amendments or veto specific line items in the budget, to offer amendments or veto any of the reforms will be analyzed at great length complete with spurious speculation about the motivations of the key players and anonymous quotes in the Main Stream Media and mostly anonymous commentators the political blogs.
<
p>And the engaged residents will roll their eyes at the political silly shenanigans, and just hope they decide quickly so we can begin to stabilize our lives.
I’m in no position to measure any of this, but —
<
p>1 Anti-tax, anti-government populism is very vocal. Talk radio organizes it and teaches it its talking points. We have somewhat of a handle on who makes calls on our side. What about those on the other side? Aren’t there a lot of them? Aren’t some of them really irate? Because irate, aren’t they more influential?
<
p>2 Even if our side wins the Phone War, aren’t legislators still afraid of losing elections? From an earlier canvassing effort, I was amazed at how many people think that potholes riddle our town because politicians are pocketing money. That’s not the kind of voter Arlen Spector wants evaluating his career.
Love your own Legislators, is the general rule, and as I say above folks will be hearing from their own legislators this weekend and as I say above, (sorry for repeating myself
<
p>
I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say the Legislature has an institutional habit of kicking hard decisions into the next session.
<
p>I worked for the Speaker when he, the Governor and the Senate President led the charge to block the gay marriage ban constitutional amendment in an issue that absolutely inflamed the public. They did so in the light of day while there was plenty of time to take them on in the next election. Very few people did take them on and the Democrats who backed gay marriage ended up gaining seats.
<
p>The Legislature abolished the 1913 law, not exactly an emotionless issue, same with casinos. And, pro-tax or anti-tax, you can’t say they are kicking that issue right now. They voted in the House and Senate to increase the sales tax with plenty of time for people to gather nomination papers and take them on. They passed controversial ethics, pension and transportation reform. You might not agree with everything they did but you can’t say they are ducking the tough issues.
No. They’re just getting them wrong.
<
p>Kidding! But only half.