Yes. Ed Glaeser sings a paean to discord:
Is the governor engaging in political grandstanding? Absolutely. Is he being confrontational? Indubitably. But he is also dead right. The pension situation is a mess; reform needs to apply to current workers as well as prospective state hires. The transportation system is in crisis and the Legislature has yet to respond fully to the ethical issues raised by the Dianne Wilkerson mess. These reforms aren't naturally connected to sales taxes, but if the governor can get action on these fronts by mobilizing tea-party-like antipathy toward taxes, then so much the better.
Now … yesterday I mocked certain legislators' complaints of how the Gov is ruining the “partnership” with the Legislature. Partnership is, of course, a two-way street. You like having a partner up there, Rodrigues? Then help him out.
We all know that most legislators have nothing to worry about in their next election. There's no urgency there, not really. Maybe it's because the GOP is a basket case; maybe it's campaign finance; maybe there aren't enough More-n'-Better Dems to run; etc.
But the governor does have to run. And he will face an opponent; if it's Charlie Baker, it'll be a formidable one. (Christy I still don't worry too much about.) Patrick faces a lot of skeptics right now, people suspicious that he's not going to follow through on the promise of big reforms, that he's not going to change the way Beacon Hill works, that instead it's changed him. Like it or not, bringing this kind of attitude is precisely why he was elected, legislators.
The governor's partnership with the legislature has indeed been very fruitful, by and large. It's not without tension, by design; but certainly last year's final DiMasi session was productive: Marriage, tax loopholes, energy, oceans, life sciences, etc.
The governor — your partner — needs big, substantial, obvious, and believable reforms on pensions, ethics, and transportation — the kind of results where even the skeptics say, “Holy smokes, I didn't think they had it in them!” He needs something big to take to the public next year. If he doesn't get those things, he's in serious electoral jeopardy. Sure, then you can have a GOP governor to blame when things go pear-shaped. After all, you had that for 16 years, and all we got was this lousy Big Dig Culture.
Nice partnership you have there, legislators. Pity if something happened to it.
Here’s the conundrum that frustrates me: Deval is more right than wrong on these issues, including the gas tax. But he’s not going to win the way that he’s fighting, and actually going in the wrong direction. In the sales tax vote he lost the progressives. He also lost 2/3 of the representatives who have entered the Legislature since 2006. Sure, he can run against the Legislature this year — a 180-degree turn from four years ago — and probably win with lots of people cheering him on. And then accomplish what our previous couple of governors have accomplished. Heck, I’d still vote for him over any other options.
<
p>Or, the governor can swallow his pride, seek a compromise, ratchet down the tough talk, and actually court the newest members of the State House who currently dislike him as much as the veterans.
<
p>If you want Deval to “win” go for the first choice. If you want him to implement his agenda, go for number two, I’d say.
<
p>Two codas. Mentioning Wilkerson just reminds me of how long Deval stood by her — not the best pro-Patrick argument. Similar to pension reform, a subject about which we got a propitiously timed press release, but not actual legislation thus far.
I think it’s possible that he didn’t win enough other D votes to gain a majority within the Dem caucus, and once he lost their internal straw poll, he lost all the votes publicly.
<
p>I, of course, have absolutely no evidence, facts, or even inside rumor to back up this hypothesis.
I appreciated his support of Wilkerson. It seemed sincere, because it was pretty obvious that Wilkerson was spiraling down. Most politicians would have run for cover.
The best way for Mr. Patrick to “support” Ms. Wilkerson would have been to privately and forcefully insist that she seek competent therapy while simultaneously demanding that she immediately resign her public positions.
<
p>That isn’t “running for cover”, it is instead recognizing her obvious mental health issues — and protecting herself, the public and her constituents from them.
<
p>Neither Ms. Wilkerson, her constituents, Mr. Patrick or anyone else in the Commonwealth (except, perhaps, the racist sharks circling in the water smelling blood) benefited from his “support”.
He was clearly wrong, but he did it out of loyalty. I think you’re right that he didn’t really help her, but he tried. For me, it’s a plus for him. He meant well.
<
p>My assumption is that Deval only went with the veto threat after a cooperative attempt failed. Now I’ll admit that’s only an assumption. Do you (or anyone) know what might have transpired before Deval’s public appeal? I’m hoping to actually talk with him next week, so I can ask that very question.
<
p>Another note: During and after the campaign, some of us were hoping that Deval would rile up the troops when necessary if the legislature needed some prodding and I think he hasn’t done that enough. I’m finding this a bit of fresh air, frankly.
I’m just not sure where this is all leading — anywhere good? And no, I’m not privy to the governor’s schedule, but I do know that the idea of raising the sales tax arose suddenly, and Deval’s opposition appeared similarly quickly. I can’t imagine when extensive negotiations could have happened when everything was rushing so.
Patrick has to run again? I don’t think so. This guy is lucky he isn’t run out of the state on a rail in the next few weeks. He will be like Typhoid Mary. Patrick is poisoning everything he touches.
<
p>
Can you say: BRAINLESS?
Based on the Herald’s prior reporting — and based on reporting included in this very article, I’m skeptical that the whole story may not neatly fit the frame they are invoking.
<
p>The story is entitled “Deval Patrick hires more pals”. The entire article is written as though while Patrick is asking for taxes, he is still hiring these people. Yet if you actually read the article you will find this:
<
p>
<
p>To me, that puts the credibility of the entire article into question, particularly whether “Deval Patrick hires more pals” or whether this is a case of someone being hired or promoted by a state department but the Herald making it sound like Deval Patrick is actually signing the papers.
<
p>They didn’t mention when Jackson was hired — I’m betting it was probably last year too.
<
p>The article plainly says that:
<
p>
<
p>In July 2008 she took a higher paying job with the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Sounds like an internal transfer to me, not a new hire.
<
p>When you read the article, it makes it sound like these people were hired last week. That is plainly false. This is yellow journalism at its finest.
does raise a couple legitimate points…
<
p>Would we be any more upset if these people were hired in July 08 versus April 09?
<
p>Would it even BE a story if they werent close friends/donors, or is Deval basically unable to fill any position, regardless of its importance?
MCRD, no where does Wedge note that anyone in unqualified for a position. There is a reason they put this on the Friday edition, it’s weak.
to be “unqualified” for these human relations and public relations state sinecures? Regardless of party or governor, it seems to me that there are a lot of phony jobs that are filled by patronage.
As far as “losing” the progressives, I think this has a lot more to do with each representative’s relationship with their Speaker than with the Governor. Off the record, I’d bet we’d find more than a few of these reps who would be more willing to find a compromise, but as we know, crossing the Speaker results in punishment. That doesn’t change their vote, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say that they now are against the Governor. Heck, even some of the public posturing from the reps has more to do with keeping tight with the Speaker.
…as I’ve mentioned earlier, is how thoroughly those with nothing to lose — the newest reps — stayed with DeLeo. If Deval can’t get new reps or old reps, who’s left?
that’s the problem.
It’s not that hard to get the signatures. It’s true, you might not win — but at least you’d get a bigger bully pulpit for your (often ridiculous) ideas. There’s a chicken and egg problem here. If ideological opponents never run because they think the odds are stacked, then there will never be more than a handful of opponents, and the odds will remain stacked.
more to lose, not less. In essence, a new rep won’t get squat without the help of a Speaker — and often the establishment will throw a few bones to a first-time elected rep to help establish their cred. So, they would get at least one tangible thing to bring back to their district when they face reelection… unless, of course, they give a good reason to leadership not to get it.
<
p>I don’t know if this bill is one of those things. Given the situation, any progressive had a choice of this this tax or nothing… so it is reasonable, even if frustrating, that most of them would choose the sales tax all on their lonesome. Now it’s time for the Senate to prove their “reform before revenue” bonafides and show that their schtik wasn’t just cheap slogans…. and see if they pass anything meaningful beyond just the sales tax.
So someone who has nothing has more to lose than someone who has something? Somebody closer to real power has shorter to fail than somebody far from it? That’s backwards, Ryan. How many 1st-time reps have lost over the last few elections, anyway?
<
p>And why the insistence on staying with a slogan war rather than backing down from demands from people to “prove” things?
with him “losing” votes on the sales tax as it did him not winning votes on the gas tax. The votes just weren’t there for gas and I’m not sure what he could have possibly have done to get them there.
…I’m very close to nominating MCRD for one of those “enforced vacations” courtesy of the BMG editors.
The state is laying all kinds of people off and services are being reduced—but that doesn’t stop the “annointed” being taken care of. Stop and think about it for a minute. No one should be getting a dime more—I don’t give a crap what they do or whom they do it for—until we are out of the woods (fiscally)
…without being quite so nasty. There are plenty of people on here who have figured out how. In fact, your own comment here immediately above is much better in tone than usual for you.
Neither the governor nor the legislature is interested in “partnership” except to dress up the same old BS as “reform.” There is no partnership unless one considers arguing over which taxes to raise taxes a partnership.
<
p>For the legislature, it is and always has been simply about protecting their political self-interests, by expanding or at least maintaining state worker employment, by doling out make-work, no-show, and half-speed jobs, and by quickly creating pension exemptions and loopholes, for them and political supporters, before any reform is enacted, assuming what’s enacted is even meaningful let alone enforceable.
<
p>How is “transportation reform” politically possible? What’s that even mean to you, Charlie? Replace the Mass Turnpike with a gas tax? Good idea, one I support, but politically impossible. What’s that leave but to raise toll/taxes.
<
p>There’s a “partnership” just as much as there’s “divided government.”
There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.
<
p>The Legislature has ignored most of these issues (transportation problems, pension loopholes, ethics questions, structural budget deficits) for YEARS. They have made an art form out of protecting the status quo even in the face of Republican governors.
<
p>Let’s not forget, for example, Mitt Romney proposed merging MassHighway and the Turnpike back in 2004 and the Legislature and Turnpike laughed him out of the room. Fast-forward to 2009 and guess what IS going to happen? The Turnpike Authority is going to be abolished and merged into MassHighway.
<
p>The governor, however, can’t all of a sudden try and take the moral highground when he’s been stuck in the mire for the past two years. He demads transportation reform but doesnt file a bill for more than a year. He has consistently demonstrated the tinnest political ear since Sen. Tin Man (D-Oz).
<
p>A bunch of these guys and gals are going to be voted out in 2010 no matter what happens. They may as well do whats right, be honest with themselves, pass the reforms, raise the revenues, and at least leave with their heads held high.
“A bunch of these guys and gals are going to be voted out in 2010 no matter what happens. ” In favor of whom? Republicans, other Democrats…what do you think?
A combination of both.
<
p>If the state GOP spent more time recruiting quality* candidates than squabbling over which newspapers to give interviews to, I may have more of a concern from that side.
<
p>But I think some imcumbents are going to face primary fights from either the Common Cause or Blue Dog** wing of the party.
<
p>*Quality meaning Rockefeller moderate, non-whacko, non-Glenn Beck worshipping Republicans
<
p>**I don’t refer to either group in the perjorative sense.
Not because our current legislators all stink — many are excellent — but because no one deserves a free ride. When legislators realize they will have no challengers, they focus more and more on being part of the game on Beacon Hill, and less and less on what their district wants. Consider, for example, Petro or Scaccia.
For everyone, not just the people out of favor with the most vocal activists. I’d like to see both Cahill and Patrick get primaries, because they have a lot to answer for. Mind you, the experience of Ed O’Reilly should be seen as a cautionary tale for anyone looking to challenge the party power structure.
don’t come off as amateur as EO’R did, don’t throw lots of crap to the wall to see what sticks, be honest about the issues, and you might have a chance at getting some traction.