In case you were wondering if Terry Murray was still irritated at the Governor for stealing her fire — and frankly, for out-performing her in the Reform-Before-Revenue game, check out these two statements.
The first is from her office on the entrance of Charlie Baker to the gubernatorial race:
I have known Charlie Baker for many years. I am familiar with his work and have a great deal of respect for him. As a Democrat and leader of the Senate, however, I will remain focused on my members and the work ahead.
Notable is what's not said: “I'll be supporting the incumbent.”
And today's op-ed on transportation — written with Joint Committee on Transportation chair Steve Baddour — is essentially a long back-handed dig at the governor, taking credit for the Senate without ever mentioning the Gov by name:
We outlined a series of changes we felt were badly needed, and we are proud that the final legislation we enacted specifically addresses those changes. Rather than simply talking about reform while waiting for others to act, the Senate worked swiftly, diligently, and collaboratively to arrive at this moment.
(My emphasis.) Let's remember that the governor did actually file legislation — in February — and got most of what he wanted. Waiting for others, huh?
And this is just a flat-out mischaracterization:
Throughout the process, we held steadfast to our insistence on reform before revenue. We strongly opposed a proposal for a significant increase in the state’s gas tax of 19 cents per gallon that did not include any discussion about reform or consolidation. Rather than continuing to throw money into a broken system, we felt, as we do today, that a fundamental overhaul of our transportation services was the better approach.
The governor's gas tax proposal was part-and-parcel of his own reform package; to say that it did “not include any discussion about reform or consolidation” is absolutely false, 180 degrees backwards.
As far as “throwing money into a broken system”, let's remember that it was the Senate that resisted getting rid of the 23-and-out pension for the MBTA Carmen — and it was the Senate's resistance that made the end of 23-and-out apply only to future hires. Broken system, la dee da, Madame President.
Furthermore, they still have not dealt with the MBTA's crippling debt load. That was the aim of the gas tax increase. The Senate simply decided to a.) raise the sales tax to patch up the short term revenue hole, and b.) whistle past the railyard, and hope the debt pays itself.
Anyway, these tensions are about to play out in the governor's race. Based on what we've seen, I would not be surprised to see some Finneran-esque remarks coming from the Murray-Baddour camp. We just have to remember that this tension is now obviously personal — at least from Murray and Baddour. I doubt how many votes these two would actually pull away from Patrick; and I really have to wonder how much they'd prefer another governor to this one.
Why so defensive, Senators? Why not just declare victory and move on?
If she wants to back Baker, be my guest. It’s not like she (and, in turn, the Senate) is at all popular, even vis a vis Patrick. He can turn her into a Bill Bulger-esque punching bag in the campaign as the main problem on Beacon Hill. And, as a bonus, he wouldn’t be wrong.
The senators should understand that the more they fight with the governor, the more the public is likely to take his side.
<
p>I don’t think Murray is a Bulger character. She’s done some terrific work; at times I’ve been a big fan. She’s immensely capable, but has been steeped in Massachusetts revenge-style politics for too long.
Not to be snide, but can I get some examples here?
<
p>I didn’t say she was Bulger. I said DLP can beat her up the way R candidates in the 90s did to Bulger. Because although she may not reach his levels of blatant corruption, she runs the Senate in much the same way.
The oceans law was her thing; as was health care cost control, which was good, if still an ongoing project.
Vain, spiteful, petty – sounds like Billy Bulger to me.
Is a loooooong way from backing Baker.
Everything Charley says is exactly right — including the “absolutely false” bit. I can’t think that Bob DeLeo is too happy about this thing either, since it gives the House exactly zero credit.
<
p>For a good laugh, check out the comments on this at the Globe’s site. My personal favorite:
<
p>
<
p>The rest of them don’t meet BMG’s family-friendly standards. đŸ˜‰
From “gotham 23”
<
p>Mostly the Globe comments are insanely awful and frighteningly ignorant. But this comment pretty much describes the Senate’s role.
<
p>Strange phenomenon.
The Senate’s role consists of Marc Pacheco and Ken Donnelly defending the indefensible while stammering “this is a labor vote!”, and other people, amazingly, listen to them.
The bill should have included Massport under the new MassDOT umbrella. It would have provided a much needed source of consistent revenue and it would have helped to hold Massport accountable in its relations with the community. The Governor’s version included Massport but they successfully lobbied the Senate to take almost all provisions related to the agency out of the bill.
<
p>It was a struggle to even get Logan Airport included in a study of fine particulate matter levels near transportation nodes. Once the results from that study show that Logan is a huge source of air pollution, we probably won’t be able to do much of anything about it because Massport will block any substantive changes as they retain their unchecked power.
<
p>Separately, in removing the gas tax the Senate created a fundamental flaw in the bill rendering it almost a paper tiger without a real consistent revenue source. Now we are seeing the consequences with the pending MBTA fare hike which perhaps could have been avoided had their been another source of revenue.
<
p>We did avoid a toll hike to pay for the Big Dig debt, but instead of doing it through a progressive or use tax, we chose a regressive tax on the poor (sales tax) which is almost as nearsighted, disproportionate public policy as raising the tolls – especially given how low income people suffer most of the burden of a recession. How is it possible that Democracts have a complete lock on government, but we consistently fail to move the state in even a mildly fiscally progressive direction? Can a few conservative talk radio hosts and Herald columnists really have that much influence over the entire fiscal policy in this state?
MassPort couldn’t have been a general money source. Federal law says the money aviation facilities make has to stay with the aviation facilities. Yo can’t take gate leases and use the moeny to repair the Tobin Bridge, or pave the MassPike.
What about seaports? Does federal law cover those? What’s the breakdown in MassPort cost & revenue w.r.t. airport, seaport, etc.?
Chuffed means pleased. Only quibble I have — just thought I should point it out as I was really confused by the title.
I’ve been getting that wrong my whole life. How embarrassing. Oh well.
<
p>I hope someone will tell me if I’ve got toilet paper stuck to my shoe as well.
<
p>
<
p>I always thought it was related to ‘chuff’ which, as I’ve been told, had to do with the sounds made by the human posterior… So if you’re ‘chuffed’ you’r making unmistakably loud and rude noises… Or so I thought. Of course, my 10 year old is exceedingly pleased with himself whenever he makes such noises so there is that correlation, too…
<
p>
until someone pointed out to me the phrase was “out in the boonies” and not “out in the goonies”
The biggest hit on Plymouth this last few months has been Deval’s administrative decision to cancel slated spending on infrastructure investments around Plymouth Rock Studios. Plymouth Rock Studios, of course, is the most advanced film-making enterprise in Massachusetts and one of the most frequent beneficiaries of the film tax credit. For instance, they are the reason that Adam Sandler is filming in Wareham later this month.
<
p>Annnnyway, a slated expansion of the Studios depended on a minimal investment in infrastructure in the area to which the state had committed. After the budget conflict broke out into the open, the money for those investments mysteriously evaporated. This has thrown PR Studios’ budget haywire and threatened the viability of the whole project — the type of project Deval’s film credit is supposed to nurture.
<
p>In other words, Deval withdrew state investment in a jobs-creation program in Murray’s district without reasoning or warning, and his decision negatively impacts a program he likes to defend. He’s either secretly rooting for the film credit to fail and doesn’t have the guts to say so publicly, or the governor is playing hardball as much as possible. Either way, Deval has emphatically burned his bridges with the Senate leader. I don’t expect the Boys at BMG to side with her, but to profess confusion as to her dislike for the governor is disingenuous.
By those standards, the Gov screwed a lot of districts. To say that there’s no reasoning … gosh, how about the budget being a few billion dollars in the hole?
<
p>And maybe — hopefully — he’s wondering real hard if this film credit thing is actually worth it.
that you’re wrong. Hardball is hardball. đŸ˜‰
Sorta sucky behavior for a supposed progressive.
pettiness: see Palin fires police chief
communal punishment: see Palin rejects stimulus money
Patrick isn’t above petty? Are you kidding? Petulant defines this guy….and we’re going to see the real Patrick in a very tough campaign, without Kerry Healey as his sole opposition.
<
p>And the lines to Palin are tenuous at best, stormv.
As to whether the film credits actually work. It seems that A&F Secretary Kirwan opposes the film credits while Economic Affairs Secretary Bialecki supports them. So the individual who looks at the budget in a big picture sense opposes the credits while the person who is most concerned with creating jobs but who doesn’t have as much of a sense of the big picture supports them. I think the debate over the film credit really boils down to those who understand math versus those who get star struck when famous people (oooh Adam Sandler) come to MA and don’t know or don’t care about the costs.
<
p>And the money we’re talking about is $50 million of bonded indebtedness issued by MA, not what I would consider minimal. And although the industry may have been shocked to not get exactly what they want from the state for once, the money was never actually promised or budgeted.
<
p>I think it’s safe to say that Gov. Patrick has been all over the map with the film credit. One of his first acts in office was expanding the scope of the credit program. Then he spent 2 years touring it’s success. But recently he seems to be scaling back. He proposed, then opposed, then supported, then opposed again a cap of $2 million for salary that qualifies for the credit. Then this business about not issuing the bonds to support the Plymouth Rock project. Maybe it was the DOR report that indicates that MA gets 16 cents for every dollar it gives out in credits. Maybe it’s the “race to the bottom” mentality that many other states have taken in giving out even larger credits than MA that have diluted the “effectiveness” (I use that term very loosely) of the MA credit (look at the program in LA, CT, NY, and MI). Maybe it’s the numbers coming in well above what the state thought this program would cost. Maybe it’s the budget situation. And maybe it’s just a dislike of Sen. Murray. Whatever motivations Gov. Patrick has, it’s nice that he’s being dragged (perhaps kicking and screaming) away from the side of the debate that wants to continue to shovel state money at Hollywood all for a chance to see those million dollar smiles from the stars.
… You’ve ably demonstrated that Mass politics is simultaneously simpler than it seems and more complicated than it has to be…
The whole glam appeal of the film credits is a major reason why they exist, in my opinion. The only thing I’d add is that Patrick ordered the state to walk away from the bonds before the DOR report came out.
In the film community in the Boston area, it was taken as a given for many years that “You can’t film in Massachusetts because of the unions.”
<
p>So a lot of people thought that was a very solvable problem, and the state finally solved it. Prior to that, Robin Dawson would beg, with little to show for it.
<
p>I was among those who thought it could be solved, but now I think the solution is overly generous and should be scaled back.
<
p>You know, like Pike tolls. :-!
I LOVE reading your comments when the topic is Deval vs. the legislature. Plymouth Rock Studios?!? You deflect as well as any Republican I have ever read.
<
p>Are you still claiming that Deval screwed up by not spending more time kissing rings on the hill?