I’ve commented here about how failure to competently frame critical issues haunts both the Obama and Patrick administrations. Framing focuses on key issues, reducing complexity while keeping credibility. Framing reaches out to the political base and gives ordinary people the ability to form their own arguments on policies that align with the political leaders they agree with. Framing in politics is a complex business and progressives seem not to be very good at it. It is not, as George Lakoff says, about “slogans, phrasing, and marketing.” Failure to frame properly allows political opponents to use their own substitute frames to critique, confuse, and limit the ability of their opponents to articulate their message. The all-too-often result: “Why am I in favor of health care reform? It’s all so complicated that I’m not sure how it really helps me.”
Case in point, the Patrick Administration’s $28 billion budget, recently “unveiled.” (Why budgets are always “unveiled” is another issue in itself.) Patrick’s budget “message” was 3,000 words long. It had no organizing sub-heads, just paragraph after paragraph of text. It began with 7 bullet points, some many sentences long. It meandered and rambled. One immediate effect was that the media, trying to convey a capsule of the major points, had to struggle to do this. So, for instance, the Associated Press story lacking a solid frame, meanders too. Failure to frame means poor, unfocused media coverage, which further clouds the message to the electorate. The budget message ends with: “We appreciate the input that we have received in constructing this budget from legislators, advocates, experts and the public.” We appreciate the input. How authentically compelling! Failure to frame allows political opponents to pick out minor pieces of the message (the budget contains some specialized tax increases) and focus the media spotlight on these. Which is exactly what has happened.
Another example: the last bullet point refers to the “Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.” This invites parody. Is this about a new gasoline tax? Heartburn prevention? Who came up with this lame title? How about “The New England Global Warming Initiative?” Now that’s something people can understand. Right away.
Here’s how the budget might have been better framed:
“This budget is about jobs, smarts, and growth. It will create thousands of good new jobs, strengthen education at every level, and guide our growth in creative and responsible ways. Job growth comes first. This budget puts us on target to reach our goal of 100,000 new jobs by 2011. “Smarts” has always been our strength. This budget keeps improving our education system to ensure that all of us have the knowledge and skills to be our best. “Growth” means new businesses but also new roads and bridges and rail lines to replace our long-neglected transportation system. Our Jobs, Smarts, and Growth budget will help you and your family in many ways in these tough times.”
And so on. “Job, Smarts, and Growth” becomes the likely media headline or audio opener. The rest of the paragraph above becomes the talking point that supporters can identify with.
Now, I might personally go a bit further and frame the Massachusetts budget in a wider context (though the Devalians would never do so):
Yes, $28 billion dollars is a lot of money. It runs all of our state government for a whole year, including vital aid to our 351 cities and towns. $28 billion also funds the war in Afghanistan for a little over one month. Next time you worry about paying your taxes you might keep this in mind.
For goodness sake, Governor Patrick, give us more reasons to support you! We appreciate the input opportunity.
Which means for those impacted, it is solely what “their” line item does, without explanation or balm.
Contrary to what you seem to believe about the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, it is not a creation of Governor Patrick as part of his FY ’11 Budget. RGGI (pronounced like Reggie) has a website and here’s a little history from it:
<
p>
<
p>Governor Romney refused to sign on, but it was one of the first things Governor Patrick did after being sworn in. Since that time, the auction of CO2 allowances has resulted in proceeds to Massachusetts in the amount of $79,095,097.68. Hardly chump change.
<
p>Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative website
Maybe Patrick missed a messaging opportunity with the design of his budget, maybe not. But a “frame” is a term of art about how issues are positioned and perceived.
<
p>On that score, “No cuts to cities and towns” is a frame, or part of one. “Reform the pension system” and “Reform the Probation Department” similarly.
<
p>Together they form a pretty coherent theme, Patrick the reformer on one side, the Legislature on the other.
<
p>Which side are YOU on? Now THAT’S a frame.
and be more likely to win if he could deliver messages like “No cuts to cities and towns” and “Reform the pension system” and “Reform the Probation Department” standing together with the Speaker and the Senate President.
..but highly improbable.
Do Murray and DeLeo favor the Gov’s further pension reform proposal and the transfer of probation into the executive branch? If so, fantastic – huge win-win for everyone. If not, why the heck not?
This is why not.
<
p>
<
p>
and prepare for the worst.
…let’s hope for the best AND WORK FOR IT!
It’s true that $28B would fund the war in Afghanistan for a month, however when I’m paying my state taxes I prefer to keep perspective on the impact to my family and neighbors
<
p>
<
p>According to the US Census Bureau there are 2,735,443 housing units in Massachusetts. At an annual budget of $28B, that comes out to $11,458 per houshold for operating the state services. Of course this assumes that the burden is spread equally amongst the households, which is not the case. For the sake of argument though, do we really get services worth almost $1,000 per month from the state? I find it difficult to justify.
<
p>Of course some of the money is returned as local aid and school funding, but we also pay local real estate taxes. Further, not all of the money comes from income and sales taxes, but ultimately all buisiness taxes come back to the consumer. The question that needs to be framed for our majority party on Beacon Hill, is; “When will it be enough?”
<
p>Would $15,000 be enough? Would $20,000 per year per houshold be enough? I don’t know about you, but I have two kids in college, car and mortgage payments, and I have to heat and run lights in my home. The state pays NONE of that for me. Where am I supposed to come up with more than my current burden of over $11,000 per year?
<
p>Even if the kids are in private colleges, who educated them K-12? Surely you’d agree that their K-12 education is a major contributor to college ed?
<
p>That car of yours — do you ever operate it on roads the state funded? How about the engineering and standards the state imposes on localities so that drivers can move their vehicles safely around yours at high speeds?
<
p>That home of yours — was it built post-building codes? That mortgage: do you think that gov’t regulation (fed/state) helps ensure that the bank won’t screw you over; likewise do you think that fed/state regulation helps the bank ensure you won’t screw them over… thereby allowing for a mortgage contract with a lower interest rate due to lower risk? About that deed: were you certain that nobody else had a claim on the property? You were; government played a role in that too, thereby decreasing the risk of a claim on the property. All of those things involve regulation subsidizing the price of your mortgage because, without those, you’d have had to pay more for the same property.
<
p>The heat and lights: surely you understand that the federal government subsidizes the heck out of energy, and the state does a bit too in the form of tax breaks.
<
p>So… NONE of it? Hah. The gov’t, fed, state, and local, has expended quite a few resources toward your kids making it to college, your home financing situation, and the energy you consume. I’m not arguing that the gov’t has (or should) contribute the majority, but surely you see that it’s more than nothing. If nothing else, government regulation has made some things tremendously liquid and low friction that are remarkably less-so in less developed governments.
<
p>
<
p>As for how much is enough — let’s ask the question differently. First, let’s decide what we do want from our government, and then ask how much it costs.
<
p>Perfect.
This budget is about jobs, smarts, and growth. It will create thousands of good new jobs, strengthen education at every level, and guide our growth in creative and responsible ways. Job growth comes first. This budget puts us on target >>The Frame
<
p>Doesn’t a frame have to have SOME connection to reality? How does this budget strengthen education at ANY level?