I understand that Governor Patrick is frustrated with the legislature. I understand that his progress on the three highest priorities is less than we all want. This is, nevertheless, a terrible idea.
Picking yet another fight with the lege about yet another issue that matters to about thirteen people is the wrong thing to do. If it were the right thing to do, Governor Patrick should have been laying the groundwork with the voters months ago.
This proposal smells like the latest example of “creative” “outside the box” thinking of the Governor Patrick campaign team. It has the scent of yet another attempt to add yet another bullet to the growing list of items the lege has stopped Governor Patrick from accomplishing.
STOP!
Here is what I think Governor Patrick should do instead:
- Tell us the specific steps that Massachusetts should be taking to address each of these priorities. Start with the top priority, transportation.
- Tell us who is blocking the way. Be specific. Name names.
- Tell us what we can do to help. Be specific. Use your bully pulpit to trumpet a call to action.
Governor Patrick knows what we care about. Let us help. Mobilize us. Let us fight the lege. Let us know that he and his team is disciplined and focused, and — given another term — will finish the fight.
LEAD us, Governor Patrick.
I agree with your Top 3. But, that ignores one which is always floating around — corruption, transparency, general good government.
<
p>A governor ignores that one at his own peril. Furthermore, unless the lege is bending over backwards to help (and they ain’t), sometimes baby steps at reform is all you can do at one time.
I view corruption as a “meta” issue — very important (even crucial), yet important (in my view) primarily as it advances or impedes the other priorities.
<
p>I think that attacking corruption is hugely important. I think that’s the worst aspect of this new announcement, because it is so ineptly framed as it currently stands.
<
p>I think we all know how the other side will frame this:
<
p>”Governor Patrick expands his administration again.”
<
p>”Which crony will Governor Patrick pick to run THIS new empire?”
<
p>etc.
<
p>If the point of this issue is to address the flagrant corruption in the Parole Board, then lead with that.
<
p>Governor Patrick could put “corruption” at the top of his list, and then frame this message so that the Globe headline is “Governor Patrick attacks corruption in Parole Board.”
<
p>The trouble is that, as bad as the Parole Board is, it is not nearly at the top of the voter’s list of corrupt practices that need attention.
I should have said “Probation Office”, instead of “Parole Board”, above.
Saving $40 million by reforming this gives the Gov and Lege $40 million for transportation, schools, and healthcare.
<
p>This is a good, strong move by the Governor. It’s good policy as well as good politics. To achieve progressive goals, we need transparency in government, and this reform brings the sunshine into a dark corner of the budget.
The “issue”, as framed in this morning’s Globe piece, is the takeover of the Probation Department by the Governor’s office.
<
p>I see zero mention of any “$40 million” saving. I’m not saying it isn’t there, I’m saying that — as published — this announcement doesn’t present that. There is nothing about moving $40M to transportation, schools, and healthcare.
<
p>The issue, as presented in this morning’s piece, is a decision by Governor Patrick to take over the Probation Office.
<
p>I think you’d be hard-pressed to find very many people, never mind voters, who worry about corrupt practices in the Probation Department. If Governor Patrick has enough long-term interest in this to actually accomplish anything, then he should have, at a minimum, found a way to sensitize the public to how serious this problem is (if it is really that serious).
<
p>I think if you asked people on the street what government practices demand reform, they’ll say things like:
<
p>
<
p>I think the public will view this as yet another example of Governor Patrick’s tone-deaf political ear.
… is what Patrick accomplishes if he reforms probation (point 3 would work, if you just stated “Out-of-control salary and benefit packages for public employees” which I think is more the public’s concern, not just transportation employees.)
Makes me wonder how carefully you actually read this article before reacting to it.
You’re right, I missed it. One sentence, buried at paragraph seven:
<
p>I think you’re making my point for me — this proposal is focusing attention on Governor Patrick expanding his administration. The cost savings appear to be an incidental side-effect.
<
p>Even if this new initiative is the desired tactic (which is still misguided, in my opinion), then shouldn’t Governor Patrick at least frame it as cost-saving measure? Something like:
<
p>”Today, I am announcing a new initiative designed to save Massachusetts more than $40M a year, allowing my administration to make desperately needed investments in public transportation, health care, and schools.
<
p>”For too long, the court system and the legislature has allowed cronyism, corruption, and waste to fester and grow in the Probation Department. Last November, I took steps to reign in the out-of-control spending of this Department. The Legislature chose to block those attempts.
<
p>”The legislature has had its chance. Massachusetts cannot afford this kind of waste and corruption. I will announce, later this week, my intention to bring this rogue bureaucracy under my control, so that I can ensure that the very limited financial resources of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are put to best use.”
<
p>I enthusiastically agree with you about the importance of bringing “transparency in government”, and “sunshine into [the dark corners] of the budget”. My feeling is that the Probation Department is one of the last, rather than first, places to start.
<
p>My list starts with the MBTA and the network of cronies and lobbyists that surrounds the lege. While it’s true that the Boston fire and police departments are the province of Mayor Menino rather than Governor Patrick, I think Governor Patrick can accomplish more — in terms of both policy and politics — by focusing there than by this choice.
First making policy decisions based solely on “political gain” results in bad government, which is bad politics. To quote Former House Speaker David Bartetly, “good government is good politics”.
<
p>Secondly, you seem to cede the issue of government reform to the far-rightwing and that is completely crazy. So if I argue that we should eliminate a program or government office (like county sheriffs, which are unnecessary, patronage laden and their functions can easily be absorbed by others), does that make me a teabagger…or someone who is enabling the whacky-right because I advocate a “good government” reform? Are you advocating that progressives should oppose measures like this, simply because it plays into rightwing talking points (which I completely disagree it does–the far right does not want to reform government, they want to kill it. Progressives must champion reform so that government provides better services.
<
p>You cite 3 issues Deval should focus on…I tend to agree they are the big three, and what they are require is more reform, before more resources.
<
p>I do agree with you about Deval’s clumsy way of prioritizing his agenda and made this observation over at the front page post.
Nowhere do I advocate making policy decisions based solely on political gain. We need both.
<
p>Secondly, I certainly don’t cede reform to the far right, and I’m certainly not accusing you of being a teabagger or rightwinger. I enthusiastically agree with you that Progressives must champion reform so that government provides better services — in fact, that is the heart of my complaint about the way this new initiative is being rolled out.
<
p>As I attempted to explain upthread, I agree that reform is necessary to accomplish our priorities. An important difference, I think, between our perspective and the rightwing nay-sayers is that they view “reform” (what they mean is actually “destruction”) as an end in itself.
<
p>I am enough of a cynic to suggest that if we were making sufficient progress on the three priorities we agree on, then “reform” would be far less important. Today, we are handing ammunition to the rightwing teabaggers each time we collectively duck another reform. I recognize the steps that Governor Patrick has taken to change this, and I think the lege is clearly the problem. In my view, that’s why Governor Patrick needs to be much more focused on bringing his reform message to the public.
…this is similar to my comment on the other post…this is good government, which should be good politics…but he’s turning it into bad politics because of the reasons you cite: looks like a power play and he’ll lose yet another battle with the lege; and the reason I cite: his reform efforts are a hodgepodge of disconnected efforts and are not part of a proactive narrative about reforming gov–except in hindsight when he cobblers them together.