Although … I think the Gov’s office could ditch the “LIVE FROM CHANNEL 7 — NEWSFLASH” intro. Seems a little much for Youtube.
<
p>That being said … today’s a good day. Gov’s got a resume to run on, a portfolio of accomplishment. And we’ve actually even had job growth. If the economy and tax receipts start to recover, Gov will be in very good shape next year.
joessays
Sales tax increase instead of gasoline tax increase was not his choice. The gasoline tax is more directly tied to transportation reform, in that it is revenue directed to transportation and it serves to change the weighting in the decision to drive versus use public transportation.
<
p>However, the sales tax increase provides more general revenue which the State sorely needs, so his protestations may have been akin to “don’t throw me in that briar patch”.
<
p>As far as getting the Legislature to move on these changes, I think some credit also goes to DiMasi and Wilkerson, the push by the citizens, and some clear thinkers in the House and Senate.
<
p>Now to be vigilant, and make sure there are further advances, and no back-slipping.
Deval gave up what he wanted on taxes, got most of what he wanted on ethics, got everything he wanted on pensions.
<
p>Once you include all the aspects — including that first bit — Deval got a tie. Which is pretty good in this economy, but that’s what it is.
johnmurphylawsays
No pouting.
johnmurphylawsays
should be required reading for anyone who thinks changing the way government works in Massachusetts is easy (or anyone who thinks these recent successes are cause to take the pressure off). Thanks for the great reference (yet another feature of this site I find invaluable).
The piece — which I also found very useful and informative — doesn’t answer one of the biggest questions it raises: why take such a big risk for a paltry $50,000-odd.
<
p>In a broader sense, the article underlines the importance of paying legislators properly. The job they do is critical. The Speaker’s job is at least as important for our collective well-being as the CEO of a large employer. The job should be paid accordingly. Legislators themselves have jobs that are at least as important as top executives in a large company. They too should be paid accordingly.
<
p>You get what you pay for in the Legislature, in more senses than one.
stomvsays
but there are 200 legislators. To give each of them a $25,000 pay raise would cost 5 mil a year, plus increases in pension. Let’s ignore that and just legally keep their pension trending exactly where it is.
<
p>Where’s the appetite for a 5 million dollar pay raise? What’s the evidence that 5 million dollars a year will be enough to keep folks’s hands out of the cookie jar? After all, it was half of what Sal sold out for (allegedly of course). Besides, what about all the legislators who simply live a $25k/yr more extravagant lifestyle, and find themselves in exactly the same kind of hole when their kids are going to college, the in-laws house needs a personal bail out, or whatever?
<
p>The article claims that Sal lost his law firm income because of the time he put into speaker. So, why not step down from being speaker, stay a legislator, and put those hours back into the law firm? I don’t like the idea of legislators working law in their spare time, but that would have been a legal approach to his situation.
<
p>The guy is Shakespearean. I don’t think a higher salary would have really helped… I think he still wouldn’t have built up a nest egg with the extra money and would have been in the same hole.
Although … I think the Gov’s office could ditch the “LIVE FROM CHANNEL 7 — NEWSFLASH” intro. Seems a little much for Youtube.
<
p>That being said … today’s a good day. Gov’s got a resume to run on, a portfolio of accomplishment. And we’ve actually even had job growth. If the economy and tax receipts start to recover, Gov will be in very good shape next year.
Sales tax increase instead of gasoline tax increase was not his choice. The gasoline tax is more directly tied to transportation reform, in that it is revenue directed to transportation and it serves to change the weighting in the decision to drive versus use public transportation.
<
p>However, the sales tax increase provides more general revenue which the State sorely needs, so his protestations may have been akin to “don’t throw me in that briar patch”.
<
p>As far as getting the Legislature to move on these changes, I think some credit also goes to DiMasi and Wilkerson, the push by the citizens, and some clear thinkers in the House and Senate.
<
p>Now to be vigilant, and make sure there are further advances, and no back-slipping.
Deval gave up what he wanted on taxes, got most of what he wanted on ethics, got everything he wanted on pensions.
<
p>Once you include all the aspects — including that first bit — Deval got a tie. Which is pretty good in this economy, but that’s what it is.
No pouting.
should be required reading for anyone who thinks changing the way government works in Massachusetts is easy (or anyone who thinks these recent successes are cause to take the pressure off). Thanks for the great reference (yet another feature of this site I find invaluable).
The piece — which I also found very useful and informative — doesn’t answer one of the biggest questions it raises: why take such a big risk for a paltry $50,000-odd.
<
p>In a broader sense, the article underlines the importance of paying legislators properly. The job they do is critical. The Speaker’s job is at least as important for our collective well-being as the CEO of a large employer. The job should be paid accordingly. Legislators themselves have jobs that are at least as important as top executives in a large company. They too should be paid accordingly.
<
p>You get what you pay for in the Legislature, in more senses than one.
but there are 200 legislators. To give each of them a $25,000 pay raise would cost 5 mil a year, plus increases in pension. Let’s ignore that and just legally keep their pension trending exactly where it is.
<
p>Where’s the appetite for a 5 million dollar pay raise? What’s the evidence that 5 million dollars a year will be enough to keep folks’s hands out of the cookie jar? After all, it was half of what Sal sold out for (allegedly of course). Besides, what about all the legislators who simply live a $25k/yr more extravagant lifestyle, and find themselves in exactly the same kind of hole when their kids are going to college, the in-laws house needs a personal bail out, or whatever?
<
p>The article claims that Sal lost his law firm income because of the time he put into speaker. So, why not step down from being speaker, stay a legislator, and put those hours back into the law firm? I don’t like the idea of legislators working law in their spare time, but that would have been a legal approach to his situation.
<
p>The guy is Shakespearean. I don’t think a higher salary would have really helped… I think he still wouldn’t have built up a nest egg with the extra money and would have been in the same hole.