This table summarizes the votes on the three amendments I discussed above. A blank box represents either a “no” vote or being absent — but I don’t think there were any absences on these amendments. And we use the traditional scoring method:
3 “yes” votes: rock star
2 “yes” votes: backup singer
1 “yes” vote: roadie
0 “yes” votes: fail
By my calculations, we have two progressive rock stars in the Senate: Sonia Chang-Diaz and Jamie Eldridge. Kudos to them.
Got other ideas on which votes we should look at? Have at it in the comments.
<table style="text-align: left; width: 500px;" border="1"
cellpadding=”2″ cellspacing=”2″>
Not too happy with him for voting against freezing the corporate tax cut…..while just recently voting to increase taxes on the people of the state. I was against the income tax anyway, preferred the sales tax, which Sen. Brewer voted for.
<
p>Still though, I would appreciate an explanation from those who voted not to freeze the corporate tax. Why did they think that was necessary under the current circumstances, yet felt OK with RAISING taxes on the people of the state. We are the citizens, they represent us….we have a right to know the reasoning behind a vote.
<
p>
I don’t know much about him, but some of these guys are surprisingly responsive if you ask direct questions. Go for it, and let us know what you hear.
Hopefully he will respond. I’ll let you know what I hear.
He and his staff always respond. Expect a follow up letter with a full explanation…it may take a week or two.
I have two letters right here on my desk about restoring rail service to Palmer. As a matter of fact, of all of the
state officials I have emailed about restoring rail service to Palmer, he is the only one who has responded. It really does make a difference.
since I emailed Senator Brewer about his vote on the corporate tax freeze. I haven’t heard back from him. It would have been nice to hear the reasoning behind voting no on the freeze. Doesn’t make sense in this economic environment, especially when they are raising taxes on the people of the state.
The next question is how can we find people to run against these Senators and then help raise money and mobilize votes for them:
<
p>Chandler Fail
Creem Fail
Downing Fail
Hart Fail
Kennedy Fail
R. Moore Fail
Morrissey Fail
O’Leary Fail
Panagiotakos Fail
Petruccelli Fail
Spilka Fail
Walsh Fail
The third vote, for the Tisei amendment, got most (if not all; I didn’t look carefully) of the Senate’s GOP votes. I would say that it’s highly likely that many of the Democrats with a “fail” rating are more progressive than Republicans like Tisei himself or Tarr, who received “roadie” ratings. So, sure: we should mobilize against those who are opposing progress, but let’s be careful about how we define that, so that we don’t waste our resources.
However, as far as recruiting candidates goes, I’ll put right out in public my hope that Ed O’Reilly will try again for the Senate, but this time the State Senate, by running against Bruce Tarr. (As a Gloucester guy, he lives in Tarr’s district.) O’Reilly has name recognition and ability to fundraise; I was impressed by his ’08 run and his progressive positions. I understand that Tarr is popular up on the North Shore, but O’Reilly seems both like the kind of guy who could beat him, and the kind of guy we need in the legislature.
I wouldn’t be able to vote for him but I could sure as heck
talk about what a great Senator he would be. Oh let’s begin, he is not at all fond of wasting taxpayer dollars on perks and all of the other non-essential spending that is so rampant in our government. He is a big promoter of green energy and getting our country off of the big oil gravy train. He would look out for the middle and working class people of the state….and so much more.
So, YES to Ed O’reilly for State Senate.
if you count up the “good government” votes, the Senate GOoPers are on the right side of them with perhaps surprising frequency. I think it may be more a function of being the minority party than being true believers in, say, ethics reform, but nonetheless, the votes are the votes.
that would be awesome. I hope he goes for it!
…that O’Reilly should try for Tarr’s seat. I still believe that would be a good move for him and his district.
Three budget amendment votes is not a large enough sample size to label someone progressive or not. I’m disappointed that some of these legislators “failed” in this debate, but they’ve also sponsored/voted for other bills that I think are important to progressives. You won’t find viable candidates to run against them just based on these votes.
These three votes are the benchmark? Based on these votes you are going to find candidates and run against these Democrats?
<
p>Then you have to run against the Governor as well
<
p>He won’t sign an income tax hike.
He signed corporate tax reductions.
And on the the third you sound like Howie Carr, when you say that state workers are hacks!
I think the votes are pretty good benchmarks. If you don’t like them, explain why, or come up with others. Preferably, do both, rather than hyperventilating.
<
p>Re the Governor, nonsense.
<
p>1. If it came to him, along with reforms and no sales tax hike, of course he would.
2. Yes, but as I said, that was in a different time. You seriously think he wouldn’t support a freeze?
3. I didn’t say, and have never said, that all state workers are hacks. Of course they are not, as I’ve pointed out in the past. But the holidays I’m talking about are, I’m sorry to say, infamous, and pretty much everyone calls them the “hack holidays” — including my former State House colleagues.
I am sure that there were many amendments restoring funds to critical social service programs that I would consider far more progressive than the three “tilting at windmill” votes like the three you cited.
to find them and call them to our attention. Instead of just being “sure.”
Agree that the income tax alternative for revenue would be “progressive”, but more so if it were accompanied by a modest increase in the exemption. And, although the income tax may be the most progressive of the options financially, I still think the gas tax increase would have been the better choice. However, as voted, I agree that the income tax option would be more progressive than the sales tax option (although some think otherwise, because of its own exemptions).
<
p>Maybe because I am not so progressive as others, but I think freezing the corporate (aka business) tax rate would be a mistake. Remember, that was a negotiated reduction accompanying closing “loopholes”, and as such the reduction/loophole closing resulted in a net increase in revenue for the State. The sales tax increase adds to the business burden, and both that tax and maybe even the income tax will flow down to the citizens.
<
p>You limit the third point to the vote taken, but that ignores some much more important issues for which no vote was taken. The MBTA cannot implement technology to improve safety because they cannot afford it. In 2008, the State made a little progress in controlling the costs of that agency:
<
p>
(Boston.com, May 14, 2008.
<
p>But that was a drop in a very large bucket that includes many other agencies and benefits that have been provided by agencies that heretofore feel they have had an open checkbook from the citizens. I don’t anyone in the Legislature should be considered a “rock star” until they return reasonableness to some of these costs of government. We have been taken off the topic of “reform” by all the discussion on various forms of “revenue”.
Just breathe slowly. In. Out. In. Out. There 🙂
<
p>
are reflective of the progressive bloc. Honestly, the income tax vote is far more reflexive of the progressive bloc than the other votes combined. For starters, it was a vote to go to 6.3%. That’s much tougher than 5.9%, for example. So the 11 that voted for that are the people who a) get the gravity of the situation and b) the most progressive IMO.
<
p>Also, I just extremely disagree with calling a vote for 3 unprogressive. The fact of the matter is many state employees only get limited vacation time – and many of them can’t even realistically use their full allotment. If you want to get rid of the “hack holidays” it should come with giving everyone in state government an extra day off to even it out. Better yet, why not make these “hack holidays” state holidays and let everyone enjoy them? THAT’S the progressive vote.
Huh? The Chang-Diaz amendment was to raise the rate to 5.95%. If there was a vote on a 6.3% proposal, I haven’t seen it.
<
p>I think you’re wrong on #3, for the reasons stated in my post. State employees may not make huge salaries, but their benefits are generally equal or superior to those in the private sector. That is certainly the case with respect to time off.
who get 2 weeks off a year – and are honestly discouraged from using them. Do you really want to steal a day from them?
<
p>In France, there’s lots of legal protections to make sure people aren’t overworked and get sufficient vacation time. They work less than us and are more productive per hour than anyone in the world. These are policies I’d like to see this country pursue — that’s the progressive vote. Voting to strip away holiday time is not progressive. We work far too many people to death in this country, quite literally, including in state governmet. Let’s not try to kill people off harder.
<
p>On the 6.3% figure — I was told from a senate aide that was the number. If that person was mistaken, my apologies. Maybe there was a different vote and we’re both right?
The Herald recently asked all 200 members of the legislature for complete lists of their staff and salaries. Perfectly reasonable request that, for any other governmental entity, would be divulged under the public records law. But of course, the legislature has exempted itself from said law. Result?
<
p>
<
p>And who, in the Senate, is doing the right thing?
<
p>
<
p>I rest my case. 😉
hope you don’t knock yourself over.
is that legislators should not release this information? Looking forward to hearing your explanation.
that is immaterial to solving the problems that face the state. I really could care less about who is working on the staff of my, or any other legislator.
<
p>What I want to know about is what my legislators are doing to make this state a better place – about educating kids, providing for safe streets, caring for the poor and the disabled, etc.
<
p>I am afraid that I disagree with your assertion “A key part of being truly progressive is working toward better government. That means the big stuff, like pension and ethics reform.” It is not that these issues don’t have their place, but over the past thirty or so years, I think we have had about half a dozen big ethics or campaign finance reforms. They have not fed one hungry child, provided assistance for one disabled adult, or helped one senior citizen stay in their home instead of a nursing home. In fact, these are the red herring issues that divert the public from truly progressive issues.
<
p>Focussing on this kind of crap is what’s killing the newspaper industry…
Unfortunately it has become obvious that we must hover over our legislators and pay attention to what they are doing with taxpayer dollars. Ignoring it just gives them a free ride to spend on unnecessary perks, including jobs for family and friends. So asking for a list of staff and their salaries is most certainly needed in order to weed out those legistlators that do not respect the funds we pour into the state’s budget from our hard earned paychecks. It’s very important.
There is no reason that disclosure and feeding hungry children can’t both be accomplished.
<
p>I personally think that rather than being “immaterial to solving the problems that face the state,” this kind of issue is absolutely key to more effective government. Can’t build a house from rotten wood.
results in overkill to make the papers happy, which results in less staff and aide to deal with “hungry children,” then, yes, it’s kinda mutually exclusive. That’s one of the reasons why third-rail politics is dangerous to society.
Rather than bother all 200 legislators, shouldn’t there be just one source for each chamber, such as the office of the clerk or the sergeant-at-arms?
I just don’t see that the same way you do.
<
p>Did the senate vote on raising the gas tax? Local options tax? Methinks those two things are mo’ better progressive issues than Bunker Hill day.
should be a State Holiday because then all of us can celebrate this key event in the American Revolution.
<
p>I grew up in Western Mass and we honored the well marked path (Knox’s Trail)used by General Knox to drag all those cannon from Fort Ticonderoga in NY to South Boston in the dead of winter, usually by night. When they pushed those cannon up the hill overlooking the harbor on March 17, 1776, the morning light reflected off the cannon and 30 British ships blocking the harbor had the good sense to evacuate.
<
p>Which is why is called evacuation day and not hack holiday.
<
p>I bet somebody can make a good argument to make Bunker Hill Day a state holiday too.
Your argument is a lot better than the one put up by Sen. Hart:
<
p>
<
p>But, you’re still both arguing against straws. Nobody ever said nothing important happened on those days, there are dozens (if not scores) of days in Mass history worthy of remembering & recognition, and nobody is proposing to stop anyone from doing that. Even granting that Evacuation Day is actually being celebrated by anyone (St. Patty’s Day celebrations seem to be everywhere on that very same day), the historical facts you mention just further illustrate the special interest nature of these holidays- those cannons were dragged all the way across the state and helped liberate us all from England, but only one kind of worker in one county gets to have it off.
<
p>Last, it should be pointed out that if you live in Suffolk County and work in the private sector, but have kids in public school, you’re forced on these two special holidays into the choice of using time off or using resources to line up child care. From that point of view, it’s definitely progressive to end this perk for a few.
<
p>
and I’m prepared to argue for the reinstatement of a non sectarian version of our infamous Blue Laws which would oblige the private sector to close down on historical holidays as well. Even WalMart, even liquor stores, even the Lottery.
…but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t get rid of holidays only a select (and they have been selected, by politics) few get. If the new holiday for everyone and the old holiday for a few happen to be the same day, great- simpler job for the calender makers.
<
p>Anyway, since we just got rid of the Blue Laws, it seems unlikely there would be support for a new ones, sectarian or not. In the meantime (eternity), I’m sure the working moms and dads of Suffolk County will appreciate the preparedness to argue for new ones, as they scramble to line up child care on those two random days every year.
<
p>BTW- Is closing bars on March 17 going to be part of the new Blue Law plan? Because I’d just like a chance to pick up some ear plugs before that’s formally proposed, so as not to be deafened by the howls of laughter that will result.
A couple years back the GOP proposed making Bunker Hill Day and Evacuation Day statewide holidays. It was voted down.
It would have gotten my vote.
Yes, there were a couple of votes on raising the gas tax (which failed, see amendments #49 and 441)) and on local options (which passed, see amendment #1). Unfortunately the Senate has not posted the roll calls online, AFAIK.
<
p>But I don’t think the single criterion for being a “progressive” is how many taxes you were willing to raise, and how high.
I thought raising the gas tax was a pretty good idea, myself, and a pretty good gauge of progressive impulses, vis a vis discouraging fossil fuel consumption, securing funding for transportation infrastucture (including the MBTA) etc. There’s a good op-ed about the gas tax by Eric Grunebaum in today’s Globe, incidentally (sorry I can’t do a link).
http://www.boston.com/bostongl…
“State employees may not make huge salaries, but their benefits are generally equal or superior to those in the private sector.”
<
p>I don’t see why govt shd follow the private sector in how it treats employees. Instead it should set an example with more generous and humane conditions.
<
p>Govt employees provide a massive amount of stability in middle and working class neighborhoods, for one thing. They are also a huge voting bloc.
<
p>Antagonizing them in the name of progressivism and expecting that to help the cause is idiotic.
<
p>It makes much more sense to make common cause with govt employees than with that part of the public which is hostile to them — the talk radio groupies.
It doesn’t make much sense to have a society where one group of people (the workers) are taxed to give another group of people (the government employees) disproportionate benefits. No one here wants to make state employees work on Christmas Day, but the idea that they should have their own special holidays is a classic example of hackery: a privilege obtained through government connections that does not provide a general social benefit. File it under pension abuse and jobs for incompetent relatives and political pals.
Pitting “the workers” against “the government employees” is pure conservative class warfare, not to mention pure B.S. Who are the “workers” in my neighborhood if not the firefighters, teachers, garbagemen, BRA accountants, mental health caseworkers, city councillors, etc. etc. All who pay property and income taxes, by the way.
<
p>And calling their benefits disproportionate — that assumes the private sector average is desirable, or for some other reason simply must rule.
<
p>At least make a progressive argument.
these guys sound just like the republican spinmeisters who have developed a new attack on public service — instead of attacking the services themselves, the republicans are now talking about transfering wealth to public employees and the public sector unions – a thinly-veiled effort to diminish public support for the important services that public sector employees provide.
<
p>Unfortunately, the brilliant minds behind these pages have swallowed this ploy hook, line, and sinker. Where they get this notion that public sector workers get benefits diproporionate to other taxpayers is beyond me. Maybe a single benefit here and there are different (although I know lots of people in the private sector who get 100% of their insurance paid because of competition for the best employees), but dollar for dollar, employment packages in the public sector are still not comparable to the private sector.
<
p>Thanks to all who see through these red herrings and can focus on the important issues of what services we provide and value and how we are going to pay for them.
Howzabout everyone gets Patriots’ Day and Evacuation Day off? I’d like to see that.
Really Bob.
<
p>
<
p>So if you are in the private sector you are a worker and if you provide public sector work you are a “government employee” not a “worker”. Interesting concept.
<
p>Last I heard, public sector workers (and they are workers Bob) pay taxes (property taxes, sales taxes, state income tax to name a few)and with few exceptions they make far less than their private sector counterparts.
<
p>And the recognition they receive from Howir Carr and now at least one founder of BMG is that they are “hacks”.
<
p>Have to say Bob, that doesn’t represent any progressive movement I want to be a part of.
Government workers work, and pay taxes, and are a crucial part of the economy — arguably even more crucial than the private sector (look at dysfunctional economies and what do you see: weak private sector, but even weaker government). Many government workers are outrageously underpaid relative both to their importance and the absolute amount of work they do. I’d put state legislators and their staff at the top of that list, but there are many other examples.
<
p>That said, ultimately in a capitalist or even a socialist economy the government does not generate wealth on its own, so far as I can tell. It manages the system so that the private sector can generate wealth. It’s a complex relationship, I agree, and there are exceptions, but I think that is a fair statement of the basic dynamic.
<
p>What I was objecting to was a hypothetical system in which that relationship is excessively weighted to the government. Personally, I think we are far from that right now in Massachusetts. If anything, the system is in general too weighted toward the private sector: we would all be richer, and have a better quality of life, in my opinion, if government played a larger role in many areas.
<
p>But not in every area. In some areas, the system is too weighted toward the government. The result is inefficient and hurts everyone. The “hack holidays” are one example of this. By all means, increase government resources in important areas, but end the special holidays.
<
p>As to whatever progressive movement you are or are not part of, that’s up to you. 🙂
The Government can “generate wealth on its own” just as much as the private sector.
<
p>Gov eg: A group of people tax themselves, then hire people to operate a hospital (utility, factory, etc.) and deciding as a group what to do with the profits.
<
p>Private eg: An individual takes his own money, hires people to operate a hospital (utility, factory, etc.) and personally decides what to do with the profits.
<
p>Same wealth created.
<
p>The problem is that some government benefits, probably including the two Suffolk County holidays, are in fact creatures of special interest. So they act as a turnoff to private sector workers who think that Gov workers get special deals.
<
p>It would be more relevant to compare the pay/benefits and work as a whole between public and private sector workers. I don’t believe there are too many workers, public or private, that are getting a great deal. We should generally support improving workers’ situations vis-a-vis employers, wealthy individuals etc.
<
p>
… Government Employees.
<
p>Reminds me of an annual softball game a music school used to have… Guitarists vs Musicians.
are simply not a progressive ideal, even if they are huge voting block (think that might be why they get the special deals?). These holidays aren’t a huge thing, but they are a sacred cow and twice a year reminder of insider perks.
<
p>It also is a nuisance if you live or work in Boston on those days and are not a public employee.
I work in the private sector and we have:
– New Year’s Day
– Memorial Day
– Independence Day
– Labor Day
– Thanksgiving Day
– Day after Thanksgiving*
– Christmas
– two floating holidays
TOTAL: 9
<
p>State employees
– New Year’s Day
– Martin Luther King Jr. Day
– President’s Day
– Evacuation Day
– Patriot’s Day
– Memorial Day
– Bunker Hill Day
– Independence Day
– Labor Day
– Columbus Day
– Veteran’s Day
– Thanksgiving Day
– Christmas
– Three Personal Days
TOTAL: 17
<
p>After three months an employee gets one Paid Time Off (PTO) day per month. That is for doctor’s appointments, personal issues, etc.
<
p>Yes, public employees pay taxes, but in general they get A LOT of benefits. At one time some were paid significantly less than private sector employees, but I don’t believe that is the situation at this time.
…would be either roadie or possibly backup singer. I would vote yes on #2, no on #3, but not sure about #1 since it would still be flat.
I don’t really care how people voted on a GOP stunt. “Fewer holidays for fewer people!” isn’t a progressive mantra in my book. But I would be interested in a chart with 7 or 8 important votes, such as (as others have said) the gas tax, or closing the greyhound tracks. Something comprehensive, and not cherry-picked, would be rather useful.
the “GOP stunt” almost passed — came a lot closer than the other two votes I mentioned. And for the reasons I’ve already stated, I think it should have passed. As for the other votes, among other problems, I don’t have the roll calls, and AFAIK the stupid Senate doesn’t post them online. Extremely annoying. If anyone knows where they are or how to get them, please let me know.
if you want to see a “GOP stunt” that actually did pass, check this out:
<
p>
<
p>Note that this is not a cost-saving measure — it does not mandate any savings, personnel reductions, or what have you. It is just a poke in the Governor’s eye, forcing him to file meaningless paperwork that will serve no purpose other than occasional dime-dropping to the newspapers. It’s particularly hilarious given that most legislators refuse to release very similar information about their own operations.
Mr. Tarr may be considered a “turkey”!
<
p>For a progressive policy change, why would the State government modify its premium cost-sharing for employee (and retiree) health care to a percent of salary, rather than a percent of cost?
<
p>Maybe something along the lines of 2% of gross income for family plan, 1% for individual plan, and 1/2% for individual retiree as supplement to Medicare.
“why wouldn’t”
…your Roadie crew has way too many Trojan Horses.
<
p>Every Republican in the Senate is graded as more progressive than 11 of the Democrats. This is the result of including the “hack holiday” vote.
<
p>So Minority Leader Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield), who argued against every single proposed tax increase in the Senate budget debate, including the 19-cent per gallon increase in the gas tax favored by the Governor — and in rhyme, no less–
<
p>…Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he’s laid.
<
p>Put words upon his tomb,
“Taxes drove me to my doom…”
<
p>When he’s gone,
Do not relax,
It’s time to apply
The inheritance tax…
<
p>scores higher than Anthony Petruccelli (D-East Boston), whose amendment proposed the 19-cent per gallon gas tax.
<
p>And Scott Brown (R-Wrentham) who filed an amendment to end the Governor’s program of providing donated cars so that welfare recipients can be employed (an amendment well and rightly denounced by BMG readers) scores higher than Marian Walsh (D-West Roxbury), who filed an amendment to make sales of alcoholic beverages subject to the sales tax, another position favored by the Governor.
<
p>Not that you’re not on to something, but respectfully suggest further work on metric. Thanks.
If we want (1) a transparent, accountable, efficient government that provides needed services, and (2) a fair society that gives everyone an open opportunity to compete, then eliminating a couple of arguably wasteful holidays is far from a top priority. I agree with Hester and others who have said that the “hack holiday” vote was more in line with Howie Carr and Herald-style “government is the problem” rhetoric than with anything that could be called “progressive.”
<
p>I don’t think we gain anything by having a debate on whether government employees have too many holidays. Let’s assume they do, and Evacuation Day and Bunker Hill Day are eliminated. What would that actually accomplish? It would mostly be symbolic: it is, of course, more expensive to have the government offices open than it is to have them closed, if we’re paying the employees either way. If one believes that there are a lot of “perks” that the insider “hacks” receive, then eliminating two little holidays will not make much difference. And the holidays are a known quantity, whereas most of the real government waste — sweetheart contracts, unnecessary positions, inflated salaries, bogus overtime pay — is mostly hidden and will continue.
<
p>The real solution — the progressive solution — is transparency: government positions, salaries, benefits, expenditures, and transactions online, as they occur. As was the case for the Six Million Dollar Man, we have the technology. The data could be posted without naming individual employees, to respect their privacy, but naming all government contractors and elected officials. It would be easy to do, and it would promote real efficiency instead of symbolic efficiency.
<
p>And that efficiency is important for everyone who cares about social justice: every dollop of government waste erodes the argument that government can do good for those who need it most, and every dollar saved is a dollar that can be used to fund worthwhile initiatives or to avoid unnecessary tax increases.
<
p>My vote would be to avoid Heraldesque detours on the way to a more progressive Massachusetts. And the very fact that we are reduced to finding three votes and two senators who are “progressive” shows that the state party leadership has utterly failed — and that we have a long, long way to go.
<
p>and if inventing of a new adjective Heralesque wasn’t deserving of it’s own 6
<
p>This one is worth a dozen.
<
p>