Does the ambition of legislators in the current Massachusetts General Court extend beyond their own continued service in office? It is hard to argue that it does. Calling the DeLeo-Murray-Dempsey-Brewer response to Governor Patrick’s Choose Growth agenda underwhelming would be – well – understated.
As limited as their proposa is, the DeLeo-Murray rhetoric about protecting the middle class from bankruptcy – implying that is what the Governor’s proposal entailed – was perhaps more offensive. Did they read the Governor’s proposals? His package would flip the effective tax rates burden, which currently sees Massachusetts residents in the lowest income quintile currently paying a higher effective tax rate (6.56%) than people in the top income quintile (5.48%). Under the Governor’s plan, this switches to 5.10 and 6.49. It would also hold the vast majority of people below $62,000 harmless from any tax increases. The leadership’s definitions of bankruptcy and middle class seem a tad off – and this from a duo that jacked up the sales tax a few years ago, which hits those who can least afford it the most.
I imagine DeLeo-Murray think they are playing the politics of this correctly. In 2010, after the $1BN sales tax hike they authored, 12 incumbent Democrats lost election and Republicans gained 4 open House seats. So maybe DeLeo thinks that a limited proposal protects his members and that using the Governor as a foil to stand as the tribune of the hard pressed middle class is therefore convenient with the 2014 midterms in mind.
But I think he has it wrong. Think about it, Democrats have 130 seats in the House. All they need to pass the Budget is 81 votes. 81 Democrats. That means nearly 50 Democrats could be allowed to vote no on the Budget if they didn’t like the tax hikes, and a very ambitious proposal could still be passed – one that, for example, means the issue of transportation funding doesn’t have to keep coming back up every year or two and represents a real long-term solution.
Instead, DeLeo wanted to see all Democrats back him (although he ended up losing a bunch) on his modest, regressive proposal – meaning he is forcing all of them to vote for a gas tax hike. Believe me, the Republicans don’t really care about the size of the hike, they will use any tax hike as a campaigning tool and gas taxes are not a bad weapon, especially if gas prices start going upwards. All the Dems, including those who think they are vulnerable on taxes, will be exposed – but without the significant benefits of the Governor’s proposals being realized.
And this is where the DeLeo-Murray rhetoric is really short-sighted and damaging – as it equates tax hikes with economic ruin for people, which is what Republicans are always saying. It just plays right into the hands and minds of people who for years have been told the taxes and government are terrible, and not the price we pay for a civilized society, the collective contributions we all make for a better future. By spewing such garbage, they are not just rebutting the Governor, but potentially hanging themselves and their members on their own words. This misreads the political climate as well: we have just elected Elizabeth Warren over a popular anti-tax incumbent, she openly supported raising taxes in a progressive manner and won, big. Yes, it was a presidential election year and good on turnout for Dems, but if DeLeo-Murray and enough of their members wanted to, they could make a winning case for such an agenda here too. And those members who just didn’t feel they could win with that, even though I think most would, they could still be able to vote against it.
If I were running the place, my rule would be thus: IF MY MEMBERS HAVE TO TAKE A TOUGH VOTE, LET’S MAKE SURE IT COUNTS FOR SOMETHING BIG, SOMETHING TRANSFORMATIONAL, SOMETHING PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO POINT TO FOR YEARS AND FIGHT FOR WHEN CRITICIZED.
The DeLeo rule seems to be the opposite: let’s make my members take a tough vote, try and force them all to vote with me, and solve no problem or reap any tangible benefit. Believe me, anti-tax Republicans will not give Democrats credit for passing a smaller tax hike. The public will not reward them for failing to fix transportation either.
What I don’t entirely get is why legislative leadership demands such fealty despite the massive majorities it commands. Those majorities could be used flexibly but ambitiously. Instead, members seemed cowed into a heard that seeks comfort and cover in overwhelming victory. I can understand that leadership does not want members to start getting a taste for voting the other way, but if orchestrated correctly, the majority can give cover to the range of views within the Democratic caucus, even while it stands up for the progressive values that lie at the heart of the Democratic majority.
And for f—s sake, what is the point of having such a majority if we don’t use it for anything ambitious. The state has faced austerity budgeting for more than four years now – we have cut and cut and cut. It is time to rebuild. For my part, I could take another 20 Republicans in the House and a few more in the Senate if we could get the Governor’s agenda through. But, I don’t think we would have to if truly vulnerable Dems were given a pass on this vote. It may be too late for a turnaround, but DeLeo and Murray could still make it happen – making a difference for their members and for their state – for many years to come.
As I’ve been saying since I got on here in 2006, our supermajority is misleading. A significant number of the members in the General Court are DINOs and detritus that have to be swept away. I am very excited about Progressive MA and its efforts and I hope Governor Patrick and his grassroots organization can finally start putting the pressure on these voters. 7 out of 44 Progressive Caucus members voted the right way, this is very discouraging. The AFL-CIO is silent on a key job creating engine that puts more white and blue collar workers to work. We have to get a coalition together and propel this legislation to victory, and then punish those that dissented. We can have the legislature we want, we just need to get the right people in the right positions.
And to keep it positive lets reward those 7, though unemployed I am inspired to contribute to the Magnificent 7 and I think we all should as well.
Donates to all the “no”voting-Progressive-Caucus reps who have Act Blue accounts.
Unfortunately, there are two who don’t, and I tried to find a donate button on their sites and ran into webjam. If anyone knows Hecht’s or D.Rogers’s people…
Let me know if this link doesn’t work.
Thanks!
Check it out: https://secure.actblue.com/page/investinma-legislators
Unlike the Governor the legislature is not a one man show. Speakers and Senate prez don’t keep their jobs by by putting guns to head.
Here there is a legitimate disagreement between business, labor, governor, legislature, progressives, conservatives, environmentalists, gas guzzlers etc.
It appears the answer is somewhere between 2 billion and 500 million.
Just as Murray and DeLeo expect.
Their job is not order members around but to force a consensus. They knew what they wee doing when they announced this plan and circled the wagons.
They new they couldn’t put together a veto proof plan.
Good job!
I’ll believe you when:
– Doors on Red Line trains stay closed
– Green Line trains stop running into each other
– Thirty year old commitments to build Green Line extensions are honored
– More than half the commuter rail coach fleet is within its design lifetime
– More than half the commuter rail locomotives are within their design life time
There is nothing “legitimate” about this plain old-fashioned bull-headedness.
do you wan another restarining order on u
you forgot to recommend tom’s post
That they will come back to the table and negotiate but needed to put a public stake in the ground so they didn’t get dragged too far. Really?
Not sure I buy that. Why couldn’t they have just worked on a compromise with the Gov and not made this such a public fight? Why not work with their members along those lines? They kept most of their members in the dark so this was not about consensus building.
You give the leadership more power than they actually have in this case.,
But couldn’t get the members to go along with him?
LOL
a complete idiot who cannot understand the subtleties of politics and legislating, but stlll a funny guy.
I am just a citizen, not a genius skilled in the high-wire nuances of delicate legislative discussions. 🙁
spent all this effort browbeating said members into supporting this bill. I’m sure some members were opposed from the right. Others, apparently, think more revenue is needed and were hearing it from leadership.
How this plays out is either a crap bill that isn’t enough revenue, or a larger bill that undoes any advantage this bill gives to Conservadems trying to argue “We tried to keep it small!”
well… says who? They didn’t call you?
DeLeo and his staff were talking to most of the other 159 members.
I don’t understand how yo can say that when the consensus is being built around 200 people.
I just get how people draw these unjustified conclusions.
Do you think the governor asks for something and DeLeo and Terry Murray simply say yes or no?
WTF
The individual legislators control their own votes, and they own whatever vote they took. And once again, the Governor’s proposal is a starting bid. One imagines that the Speaker had an opportunity to put out a third bid (the 2nd being ACT TO INVEST) and then haggle out the differences. Wouldn’t that have been awesome? Maybe we’d have gotten a much better package. Maybe the Governor’s could have been much improved. Maybe ACT TO INVEST could have had some gas tax shoved into it.
Except that didn’t happen.
There’s no way to reach consensus or even compromise when the discussion includes a party who either doesn’t want to participate or worse — seeks to actively derail the process.
The Speaker has been in the latter camp ever since Governor Patrick didn’t jump high enough to suit him during the casino debates.