Bob was next, with a question about the role of corporations in society (and a tricky bit about Ben Franklin and Adam Smith at the end).
I then turned to questions from BMGers, and started with KBusch’s excellent question about the budget deficit.
Then Charley, who had to join the call late, asked a question that was in the news just today, namely, what to do about health care costs.
We had time for one more, so I asked STGM’s question about Secretary Galvin and a redistricting commission. On this, I thought the Governor’s answer was quite interesting.
Our thanks, again, to Governor Patrick for taking the time to chat with us, and to his press folks for setting it up.
Please share widely!
n/t
Governor Patrick,
<
p>I am completely dismayed that you have chosen to cut muscle and bone splinters from state programs while you have championed spending that is most certainly “fat”, directed at “fat cats” who simply don’t need it. How could you possibly justify getting down to cutting badly needed programs when you are proud to give away handouts to companies like Liberty Mutual, Raytheon, and Fidelity, and to a billionaire like Bob Kraft, etc.? I understand the logic behind incentivizing business investment by giving away tax incentives, but this is a discredited system of theft from the people of the Commonwealth, designed by the companies that profit from it.
<
p>We can do so much better, and it would be nice if our Governor could make closing tax loopholes something BETTER than “revenue neutral”, but the people of Massachusetts have spoken and apparently they like your business-first mentality.
<
p>Shame on you for pretending you stand for people first.
<
p>And don’t bother answering me unless you’ve also got an answer to this question:
<
p>What did you know about Ameriquest’s fraudulent business practices while you were on their five-director board, when did you know it, and what role do you think these practices played in creating the global economic collapse that you so blithely claimed to have no hand in?
Full disclosure: “empowerment” is perhaps Jill Stein’s biggest fan.
Governor Patrick asked Charlie effing Baker to be his running mate in 2005:
<
p>
<
p>What’s a bigger transgression — being a fan of Jill Stein, or pretending like Charlie Baker would be the worst imaginable horror for Massachusetts when the reality is that he’s the same damn thing?
Massachusetts will have nine congressional seats.
<
p>What if each voter were given nine votes to cast, and all candidates ran at large? In this approach, the nine highest vote-getters would serve in Congress. My understanding is that the Constitution allows this radically different way of choosing representatives; the power to determine how a particular state apportions its congressional representatives is explicitly delegated to each state.
<
p>Voters who feel strongly that they want to be part of a particular “block” can cast multiple votes for a candidate who they perceive to best represent that block. It seems to me that this approach is particularly beneficial to potential voting blocks that are under-represented in the current process. Each voter determines, for himself or herself, which blocks are most important to him or her.
<
p>Each candidate can, in this system, determine whether to conduct a statewide broad-based campaign or to target a specific set of possibly-overlapping voting blocks.
<
p>Presumably this approach could be applied to primaries first, so that the various parties can first determine which nine candidates best represent them in the final election.
<
p>Many of us feel that the current system is broken. The approach I suggest offers an opportunity to empower voters to more effectively select candidates that are truly representative of them.
which, along with instant runoff voting, fusion voting, and a variety of other things, has long been kicked around as an alternative to the usual at-large and district systems generally in use around the country.
I’m also not sure how this would fit with various equal representation rulings and voting rights legislation. MA for one has been districted from the beginning. On the merits I’m leery too. This could result in the entire delegation being from Boston.
There are about 6.5 million Massachusetts residents and about 620 thousand Boston residents. Thus, there are about nine non-Boston residents for each Boston resident. I suggest that your concern about an all-Boston Congressional delegation is perhaps overwrought.
<
p>If each Boston resident cast all his or her votes for a Boston candidate, it might ensure one or two Boston candidates. That same approach would, however, ensure that the remaining nine candidates would be from elsewhere.
<
p>If the remaining ninety percent of the population came to the conclusion that Boston candidates were superior (an extraordinarily unlikely scenario in my opinion), then it seems to me that a representative democracy should respect the will of those people.
<
p>I think that any statutory regulations demanding explicit congressional districts can be fought on constitutional grounds.
<
p>Lani Guinier advocated this approach to voting as a way of empowering minority voters. Cumulative voting was used to elect the Illinois House of Representatives from 1870 to 1980 and is widely used in corporate governance.
Lowell has discussed moving toward a district system for city council, now all nine at large, precisely because, the proponents of this reform argue, Councilors are not well distributed in terms of residence within the city. The constitution specifically allows the Congress to make a standard law overriding state authority to provide for the time place and manner of choosing representatives.
Christopher, I invite you to cite the section of the constitution that “specifically allows the Congress to make a standard law overriding state authority to provide for the time place and manner of choosing representatives.”
<
p>I really don’t think it’s there. The closest I can find is this (emphasis mine):
<
p>I don’t see anything here about overriding state authority.
The blockquote you use refers to the census, and the “they” in the last phrase thereof clearly refers to Congress. In other words, Congress shall by law provide for the manner by which the census is conducted.
<
p>I was refering to Article I, Section 4
<
p>
See US code Title 2 Chapter 1 Section 2c:
<
p>So if we wanted to go to at large representatives, we would need congress to repeal that law first.
A constitutional challenge is another route.
<
p>It seems to me that the constitutional foundation for this statute is far weaker than, for example, the grounds cited for enacting the health insurance mandate.
I feel as if Brookline Tom’s idea is well intentioned, but I think it would have a terrible effect on less well funded candidates. And moreover, would the top nine in this scenario be a mix of Republicans and Democrats?
<
p>With a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, can we as Democrats afford to give the opposition any breaks? What message woud it send nationaly if three or four of the at-large congressmen or women from Massachusetts are Republicans? Personally, it makes me shudder.
<
p>Respectfully Submitted,
Sincerely,
Wayne J. Wilson, Jr.
Roslindale
The objection to Lani Guinier’s advocacy of cumulative voting was the opposite — the concern was that it would increase, rather than decrease, minority representation. Since minority candidates are generally also underfunded candidates, I think the actual effect would be the opposite of your speculation.
<
p>You wrote:
<
p>I think it would send a national message that Massachusetts values real representation above party affiliation. In the unlikely event that the Massachusetts GOP can find three or four candidates who could garner enough votes to make the top nine, I think that result would be healthy for both Massachusetts and the nation.
<
p>Perhaps I have greater faith in Massachusetts residents than you. Our political system is very broken. I think that any Republican elected under this system would be significantly to the left of the national GOP (because even Republicans in Massachusetts are to the left of the national party). That result would be healthy for both the Massachusetts and the national Republican party.
The Governor seemed confident he will be able to confront some of the more vexing issues he faces in his second term: job growth, youth violence, health care cost control, and implementing education reform.
<
p>I am glad the Governor appears to be committed to a grass-roots political strategy and a firmer commitment to seeing these above policy matters are developed, implemented, and evaluated rigorously.
<
p>On the other hand, I didn’t hear anything from Gov. Patrick concerning utilizing his grass-roots supporters to cajole the Legislature into passing necessary political reforms aimed at curbing public corruption (e.g., the Probation Department scandal) in the state. That was disappointing.
<
p>I would like the Governor to use his political capital to confront the Legislature head-on the issue of political reform in the state. I understand and appreicate the symbolism of a $300 pay cut for state legislators. However, if the Governor really wants to prod the recalcitrant legislature over political reform, he should threaten to veto the FY 2012 budget unless the Legislature passes a reorganization of the Probation Department that places it under the authority of the Executive Office of Public Safety.
<
p>Governor Patrick is a sweet, thoughtful, and generally progressive politician, but I am not convinced, after four years of mostly seeking generous accommodations with the Legislature, he is now prepared to confront the Legislature’s malfeasance and collective sloth concerning open and clean government issues such as the Probation Department scandal.
<
p>Yes, it might propel the Governor to confront the Legislature on the Probation Department scandal and other open and clean government matters if his grass-roots progressive supporters organized a political campaign around initiatives that advance open and clean government. Still, I am not really convinced the Governor views the “public corruption tax” as one of the most odious surcharges that citizens of Massachusetts pay each year, regardless of which party controls the Corner Office. Prove me wrong, Gov. Patrick.
I’m still skeptical, but would love for Governor Patrick to show me that I am wrong to be skeptical. Here are a few responses to Governor Patrick.
<
p>You talk about generational responsibility:
<
p>
<
p>I absolutely agree with that. So many of us do everything we can to raise our children well, support them throughout their education and then send them to college. Those of us in the middle class, who do not qualify for financial aid, send our kids to college even when it creates a huge burden on our household budgets. Many of us are doing our part. Of course I realize that there are some parents who do not and shame on them. But there is another problem. There are many, often the wealthiest of people and corporations with the highest profits who refuse to do their part. They insist on keeping wages low and are currently refusing to hire as well. Or they are bypassing their “shared responsibility” to our people and our country and are outsourcing to foreign countries and setting up shop in countries where wages leave people in dire poverty. They do it under the guise of a free market capitalist society. Generational responsibility is often spun to mean socialism when such responsibilities are asked of the elite. So while you try to compel us to do our part, I think it would be a huge benefit to all of us if our leaders also asked the same of corporate America and the wealthiest among us.
<
p>Which leads me into my second comment. The hair stood up on the back of my neck when you proudly proclaimed you’re are a capitalist. Unfortunately, after the last 10 years of heartily enjoying this capitalist society that we live in, the word makes me sick to my stomach. The proud call of a capitalist society, at least our capitalist society, means that workers are pillaged and pulvarized while most or all profits are held and distributed among those people who already hold most of the capital and who therefore are now enjoying incredible power both in the political arena as well as being above the laws that most of us are held to keeping. I am happy to hear that you believe the free market, without regulation, doesn’t’ always get it right.
I believe that is happening now in our free market capitalist society and I think too little is being done to correct it.
<
p>So when you say:
<
p>
<
p>Whose wealth are you supporting? You certainly aren’t supporting wealth creation for me when you allow Cape Wind to charge inflated prices for their energy output. In that case you are supporting wealth for a few select people, with that wealth being pulled from the rest of us. That is pretend free market capitalism. That is the redistribution of wealth upward. It’s wrong.
<
p>I am happy to hear that you are ready to focus on payment reform to try to reduce costs for health care and health insurance. I agree that is an important step for reducing the overall costs and it is a long time in coming. Yes, as Charley says, this reform will hit the bottom line of the hospitals. But that’s OK. Because from my perspective, these exorbitant health care costs are being redistributed as high pay for administrators, spent on other unnecessary administrative costs as well as constant hospital renovations that are indeed beautiful but completely unnecessary. There was a time when I could take my child for a physical exam and pay one fee, usually a copayment. Now, services are unbundled and you are charged for the physical, the Snellen eye exam (yes $80. for my son to read one line on a chart from 20 feet away), the hearing test, and all labs separately. Not to mention the hundreds of dollars I paid last year for immunizations, with an additional $15 charged for each injection. So not only is the insurance company paying more, but with the unbundled services covered at 80%, so is the patient. It is beyond ridiculous.
<
p>I appreciate you spending the time to do this interview. As much as I want to have faith that you will work hard to make sure that all hard work is rewarded, I still feel quite skeptical. I would be thrilled if you prove to me that my fears were unwarranted. Please, please, help us help ourselves. That’s all that we want. We want to be able to grow our own modest wealth without someone coming along and helping themselves to what we work hard for, all so that the wealthiest among us can have more. Please stop facilitating that behavior.
<
p>Thank You.