The debate between His Excellency and Jay Gonzalez just wrapped up and I honestly don’t think it will move the needle much. On social issues I felt like I was watching a Dem primary debate, though Gonzalez tried moving Baker to the right by repeating that he endorsed Geoff Diehl. On fiscal issues Baker sounded like British Tory PM during Questions Time explaining how his approach actually worked better toward outcomes progressives would like. Gonzalez responded to much of what Baker said about his accomplishments by saying not good enough. It was very polite and occasionally produced points of agreement and I have to admit I miss politics done this way. Jon Keller seemed fair and mostly stayed out of the way. The Senate debate will be Friday 10/19 also on channel 38, at which I expect we will see starker contrasts.
The optics were terrible for Jay Gonzalez with Baker towering over him at 6’6″. Damn, why didn’t his team insist on a podium to hide the riser or they should have been seated behind a table.
Wait! What?! Somebody is running against Baker?!! According to what I’ve seen in the media, I thought Baker was running unopposed and would be voted in by acclamation!
I’m shocked to discover there is another candidate. Why didn’t anybody on the TV or the newspapers tell me?
Between our “liberal” media and our “liberal” legislature, nobody has anything to say at all.
If there were some — any — elected officials speaking out in favor of our Democratic agenda, then our local media might be more motivated to report it.
If the speaker of the house, Bob Deleo is saying anything, it’s not being reported. Maura Healey introduced Mr. Gonzalez on primary night — and I see nothing from her about the race since then. Her own website is silent on the gubernatorial race so far as I can tell. I get daily emails from Elizabeth Warren about a long list of nationwide candidates she encourages me to support and contribute to. I don’t think I’ve received a single communication from her about Mr. Gonzalez. I get nothing at all from Mr. Markey.
I certainly appears to me that our overwhelmingly Democratic legislature, our unanimously blue national delegation, and our blue statewide office holders have all chosen to ignore the upcoming gubernatorial contest.
When our own party takes this stance, is it surprising that our local media mirrors that disinterest?
Have to agree. Our media and our legislature is owned, lock, stock, and barrel by the wealthy corporate sector.
Sure, on some social issues, like reproductive rights and marriage equality, we’re “blue” but on anything that affects the wealthy, we’re in Reagan’s camp.
Agreed.
Sadly, I think it’s actually a bit worse than that. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization, and we refuse to pay that price.
The fascinating Catch-22 that our elected officials have established is:
1. It’s impossible to raise taxes on the wealthy (citing constitutional objections)
2. Any tax increase therefore applies to all of us
3. As economic suffering increases, the resistance to taxes increases
4. Taxes therefore cannot be increased for anybody for any reason
Then we bemoan the collapsing civilization around us, even as we steadfastly refuse to pay for it.
I wouldn’t go as far as Reagan’s camp. Spending time on a national progressive blog like Daily Kos would remind you how privileged we are to be governed pretty well compared to say, deep red states.
@Christopher:
The assertion about “Reagan’s camp” was about economic issues — specifically, any proposal that hits the wealthy.
Can you offer some specifics where Massachusetts is any better than, say, Arkansas on matters that involve taxing the wealthy?
You and I (and I suspect johntmay as well) are old enough to remember when Proposition 2 1/2 became law. We also remember how extreme and radical it was at the time. That was literally the time of Mr. Reagan (his first term, in fact) and was entirely consistent with his economic dogma.
Proposition 2 1/2 has been Massachusetts law nearly four decades now. I suggest that it has long since stopped being radical, and is instead now one of the foundation stones of Massachusetts tax policy. None of the benefits promised during the successful campaign of its proponents has come to pass (not surprisingly).
What’s happened, instead, is that the infrastructure that we depend on has crumbled while our “Massachusetts Miracle” has become a mirage for all too many of our residents.
I’d rather return to the top of the pack of “best-governed states in the nation”, instead of perhaps being marginally better than some of the worst states issues of tax policy.
I further note that income inequality here in Massachusetts is among the worst in the nation. Wealth concentration is likely to be even worse, but is essentially impossible to gather data on (both federal and state governments studiously avoid taxing or even measuring wealth).
I think that johntmay’s assertion about being “in Reagan’s camp” on economic issues that affect the wealthy is spot on.
I know what he meant. I don’t have time to go digging right now, but New England states in general are consistently ranked near the top of best places to live, do business, get an education, etc. We are more than marginally better and there are things we really do take for granted that it continues to shock me just aren’t true in other states.
Prop 2.5 wasn’t quite before my time, but before my memory. It is the worst law we’ve ever passed IMO and the highlight of what passes for my political career was chairing a successful campaign to get my hometown to pass debt exclusions to pay for a new library and police station. It had previously been responsible for closing fire stations, schools, and even the public library for a time.
@ Christopher:
I encourage you to think a bit more deeply about this. Perhaps you might enumerate the top three other states you have in mind. I ask because I suggest they would be New York, California, and perhaps Connecticut. If so, then the link I provided above shows that those three states have even more extreme income concentration than Massachusetts.
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine each have a lower GINI coefficient — and each is generally NOT included in a list of best states for doing business or getting an education.
It isn’t that I disagree with your characterization. I suggest, instead, that you are speaking from a position of white privilege. You, johntmay, and I each enjoy the benefits you describe. A great many of our minority brothers and sisters do not.
If you are a black or Hispanic woman — especially a black or Hispanic woman without a post-HS degree — I suggest that life is not nearly so sweet in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, or California.
I share your opinion of Prop 2.5, as you know. I remind you that in addition to being a Reagan-era legacy, it was also explicitly modeled after California’s proposition 13 — the signature action of the slash-and-burn right-wing of the era that brought Ronald Reagan to power and began (starting with Reagan’s 1981 tax-cut) government’s collective road to ruin.
The upthread claim that you opposed was that “on anything that affects the wealthy, we’re in Reagan’s camp.” It appears to me that our subsequent exchange demonstrates the accuracy of that claim.
A hallmark of actual progressive political clout in Massachusetts will be a successful repeal of proposition 2.5. I’m not holding my breath.
Hard to see how much I am benefitting directly when I’m flirting with the poverty line. If we want to talk about minorities I assume you don’t think THEY would be better off living in say, Mississippi or Alabama, which is what I think of as really being in Reagan’s camp.
So if Prop 2 1/2 were on the ballot now do you think it would pass again? I think it would. Isn’t that the will of the people, whether you agree or not. Get up a petition.
Sadly, I think support of Prop 2 1/2 is, if anything, stronger now than it was 35 years ago. I cite this as evidence that Massachusetts is not nearly so liberal as claimed by either pundits or ourselves.
Tax policy is the central reason for local government to exist. Tax policy enacted through referendum is a key symptom of political dysfunction.
I’ll give you a little example from the hinterlands. I pay about $400 (plus a $25 Dunkin gift card tip) a year to have my trash picked up. If something falls out of the bin the guy gets out of the truck to pick it up. They’re never on strike, if they’re going to be late I get an e-mail.
If this were a municipal function I don’t think I would get the same service. I don’t want to find out.
Here in Somerville, my trash is collected every week. The guys pick things up here as well (they use big trucks, so things get dropped very rarely). If I have big items (mattress, box springs, etc), I just put them on the curb on trash day.
I’ve lived in Somerville since 2010. During the time I’ve been here, there have been no strikes. When there is an extreme weather emergency, I’m notified by the town via email, voicemail, and text.
I lived in Billerica from 1979 to 1987, and in Dunstable from 1987 to 1998. In Billerica, I had to bring my own rubbish to the dump (it was the most sought after campaign location for local elected officials). In Dunstable, I paid for pickup similar to yours.
I lived in Brookline from 1999 to 2010. My trash pickup in Brookline was comparable to my experience here in Somerville.
My own experience with municipal trash service has been much better than my experience in Billerica or Dunstable.
I think you’re allowing your political ideology to color your attitudes about such things. We in Somerville are willing to pay for the high-quality government, police, fire, and schools that we want.
In my experience, we get those — much more so than I did in either Billerica or Dunstable.
I’m glad you’re happy. So am I.
That’s a different tune… before you stated:
So, your present happiness contravenes your previous pessimism. Only one can be genuine.
My point is I am happy with my current situation. I pay a private firm to get rid of my trash. They don’t do well or charge me too much I can find another provider. I know its cost. I doubt very much that if my town provided this service my taxes would only go up $400 a year.
Tom is happy to pay into a government entity and is happy with the service they provide, good for him (and you I assume).
“I doubt very much that if my town provided this service my taxes would only go up $400 a year.”
Why?
You rail against Republican corruption at the national level, we have documented Democratic corruption at the state level, you don’t think things happen at the local level?
Is your town government corrupt?
Evidence?
@corruption: I offered concrete data about my town. Have you done the same?
I hope you don’t mind if I disrupt your government-is-bad happy-talk with some actual data.
You are paying $400/year out-of-pocket, and you say “I doubt very much that if my town provided this service my taxes would only go up $400 a year.”
I invite you to peruse page 212 of the Somerville MA FY2018 budget, where you’ll see that Somerville spends $5.173 M/year on solid waste removal (you haven’t mentioned whether your $400/year charge includes hazardous waste removal). Page 12 of the same document reports that Somerville has 78,901 residents.
It therefore costs $65.56 per year for my solid waste removal. You’re paying about six times as much for this service as me.
If your town can’t get the job done for less than $400, I suggest you need to choose different town government.
I also want to remind you that solid waste handling is a small part of the impact of Prop 2..5.
America tried private fire fighting and police more than a century ago. It was a disaster. Public education is a cornerstone of Massachusetts civilization — it was invented here.
The primary impact of Prop 2.5 has been to savage local education, police, and fire firefighting. Communities in rural MA have fared much worse than the Boston metro area. That’s all true even after taking into account the regressive lottery funds, which take money away from our least affluent and spend it on local aid in a token effort to ameliorate the impact of prop 2.5.
I really encourage you to learn more about the actual nuts and bolts of government, especially local government, before repeating discredited GOP talking points.
Your math includes kids in town? There’s two people in my household so that’s now $200 per year isn’t it? Guess the comparison would be better if it was done by household wouldn’t it? Not sure about that fancy math stuff.
Just glad you’re happy with what you pay for the services you get, I’m happy with mine.
Sites like this report that there are 33,642 households in Somerville in 2018.
So that’s $153.77 per household per year — still less than half the figure you’re quoting.
I’m glad you’re happy. I’m glad you don’t mind paying twice what I pay for private service. I’m glad you’re in an income/wealth group that can afford that.
It reinforces, rather than challenges, the argument I’m making. Privatization is often more, not less, expensive. The areas that prop 2 1/2 hit hardest — education, fire, police — are the areas where privatization has already been shown to be a disaster. In the example you put on the table yourself, privatization is more than twice the cost of its publicly-funded alternative.
“Not sure about that fancy math stuff” — sounds like an old Republican bromide to me: “I’ve already made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts.”
I don’t pay that much attention, I admit it. Certain things do set people off, it’s like when Worcester Center Mall asked people to pay a dollar to park, I knew it would hasten it’s demise.
If trash were $150 a year (public) vs $200 private I would still go private just to be able to fire non-performers.
Police for example it doesn’t make sense to not have the gov’t do it, but many out here supplement with private services, ADT etc.
Everyone has thresholds for various things, budgets, trust in government etc. don’t ever take anything I put up personally though, We just view things through different prisms.
Talk about moving the goalposts. You already said you pay $400/year.
We already have a way to “fire non-performers” — a ballot.
You and voters like you whine about “high taxes” while paying more than twice as much for the same service and imposing that decision on the rest of us.
It’s clear that you care nothing about facts. You’re just blowing smoke.
I pay 400 a year. There are two of us in the house.
So that works out to 200 a year per person right? A pittance, either way. I’m not imposing that decision on you, your town includes trash so you’re good right?
I’m not the only one who feels this way. Oxford Mass voters don’t trust govt either.
OXFORD – After plenty of trash talk, voters overwhelmingly kicked the proposal for townwide trash collection and recycling to the curb.
At Tuesday night’s special town meeting, there were three articles addressing solid waste collection and disposal, and all of them failed.
Department of Public Works Director Sean M. Divoll gave a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation on the pros of townwide trash collection, but town residents weren’t buying it.
Calling the current system of seven independent haulers “inefficient,” Mr. Divoll said people in town are paying a lot more on trash and recycling than they should be.
Mr. Divoll said with 60 percent participation it would cost $72.46 per household per quarter and $290 per household per year, and with 80 percent participation, $67.36 per household per quarter and $269 per household per year, compared with the private hauler average of $114 per household per quarter and $459 per household per year.
Mr. Divoll stressed repeatedly that the townwide trash pickup program would not be mandatory and residents could get out at any time.
Erin Pratt, co-owner of Pratt Trucking, which serves 60 percent of the town of Oxford and had the most to lose from townwide curbside pickup, presented her business as an 83-year-old, third-generation company offering fair prices and always listening to its customers.
Ms. Pratt called Mr. Divoll’s proposal a “one size fits all” template from the state Department of Environmental Protection that wouldn’t work for the unique town of Oxford.
She also accused the town of trying to monopolize trash pickup and take away people’s freedom of choice, two themes that became popular with the opponents who made their way to the microphone.
Liza Casella, director of solutions development and coordination for Casella Waste Systems, the hauler that would have be awarded the townwide contract, spoke about the Casella company, but her words fell on deaf ears.
Other complaints made by those in opposition were that private companies do better than municipal government-run operations because businesses have to be accountable to their clients, and that the proposal for townwide trash pickup wasn’t “robust” enough to switch.
Of course you’re not the only one who feels the way you do.
Nevertheless, the facts are compelling. You pay $400 per household. Somerville residents pay $153.77 per household. Private collection in Oxford is more expensive than yours, and town-funded collection more than mine. Your own numbers for Oxford were $269 per household per year for public (at 80%) and $459 for private.
I’ve never disputed that you and people like you feel as you do. My point is that you are paying significantly more for the choice you’re making, while simultaneously claiming that public solutions are “too expensive”.
You started with the claim that public approaches cost more. When faced with the reality that in fact they cost significantly less, you change your argument.
You introduced trash collection to the thread. The case for public funding of police, fire, and education is even more compelling (you agree upthread).
The bottom line of all this is that there is no rational argument for prop 2 1/2. The reality is that privatization often — even usually — costs more than public funding for necessary services like this.
Whatever animus against government motivates prop 2 1/2, it is NOT grounded in any rational model or experience of actual costs and benefits.
Your words
” You started with the claim that public approaches cost more.”
My initial words
” If this were a municipal function I don’t think I would get the same SERVICE I don’t want to find out.”
I said I doubt my taxes would only go up a small amount, we will never know. I’m paying more than you. I’m happy. So are you.
Prop 2 1/2 would pass again.until the trust factor changes. Maybe years of honest transparent government can change perceptions, it will take a lot of work.
You’re just dancing right now.
I don’t see any way to parse your words differently than I have. Your words mean (whether you intended this or not) that you think making this a municipal function would degrade it, and you don’t want to find out.
That same comment also quoted your $400/year household cost, and described the service you get.
Your last paragraph confirms my comment — your support of prop 2 1/2 reflects your prejudice against government
You are indeed paying more than me. The data you cited from Oxford and I cited from Somerville confirms that you are paying significantly more (on the order of twice as much) as you would pay if it were a municipal service. The experience of all the participants on this thread is that our municipal service is just as good as your private service.
My own experience, that I cited here upthread, is that my municipal service in Brookline and Somerville is better than the private service that was available in Billerica and Dunstable.
What you call “the trust factor” looks to me like blind prejudice against anything done by government. This is particularly ironic since it is your own local government that you distrust in this case — do you go to town meetings? Do you know your selectmen?
See, I think you’d rather hang onto your prejudices and spread them (I assume you tell friends and associates in person similar things to what you write here) than actually DO anything to address them.
If you don’t like the way your town government spends your tax money, then change your town government. Instead you and people like you hamstring government and hurt the entire state by imposing the disastrous prop 2 1/2 constraints across the board.
It doesn’t hurt the whole state, your town is able to override anytime you want. Go for it. It’s a tough sell though isn’t it.
@ doesn’t hurt the whole state: Oh, please.
It has devastated state government. I’m not sure if you’re old enough to remember how much better our government was just prior to prop 2 1/2. Our schools were better. Our roads were way better. Our public transportation was better. We had fewer homeless people living on the streets.
Your claim that Prop 2 1/2 doesn’t hurt the whole state because a town can vote for an override is laughably incorrect.
Yes, it is a tough sell, which is why the law should be repealed outright. That way local leadership can raise the revenue they need without having to go hat in hand on an ad hoc basis to selfish and short-sighted voters.
It is vividly apparent that government is distrusted by many. What is under discussion here are the reasons given for that distrust and the complete disconnect between those reasons and reality.
You say price is important to you, but you demonstrably pay a higher price. And, not for nothing, you pay even more than you think, and that extra to the governnment to boot, because waste disposal is fundamentally about public health and safety, therefore the private haulers are subject to regulatory oversight and inspection. Oxford probably pays an extra hefty per year amount to fund a governmental position/department to oversee the seven independent haulers. Call it the ‘hate gov’ premium.
If you are going to quote from a a jounalistic entity, please cite your sources.
Never said price is as important as service. Price isn’t a big deal either way.
You brought up the price, not me. On one hand you whine about how much you fear taxes will increase if the town provides the service. Then, when it’s shown that you’ll actually save money, you pivot to service — yet you ignore all of us (including me) who’ve experienced both public and private service. You said yourself that you don’t want to know how good municipal service might be.
Like I said days ago, you’ve already made up your mind and don’t want to be confused by the facts.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just admit that you’re being driven by your own prejudice against government and be done with it?
I’m done. I get it, big gov’t good, private bad.
There’s never corruption. I’m sure all our Speakers were actually innocent.
When Lantigua was elected mayor of Lawrence in 2009, I’m sure he and his cronies were never guilty of corruption in of all things a three-year trash removal contract with a company named Allied Waste.
Hope you get 2 1/2 repeal on the ballot and I promise I’ll vote for it. You’ve all convinced me.
You just flame and flame and flame.
We’re talking about municipal trash collection, not “big gov’t”. We’re talking about plain facts — concrete data — that clearly shows that private trash collection is at least twice as expensive as its municipal counterpart.
We’re not talking about Lantigua or Lawrence, we’re talking about your town and mine.
You flame louder when faced with facts that challenge your biases.
You’ve been here long enough to know that I am among the most outspoken participants against corruption in this community. That’s got nothing to do with this discussion.
If you believe your town government is so corrupt that it can’t be trusted with municipal waste collection, then you should change your town government — you might start by attending your town meeting. If you believe your town is comparable to Lawrence in 2009, I would think that would make you even more motivated to improve your town.
Instead, you choose the nihilistic I’ve-got-mine-so-screw-you approach of prop 2 1/2, and you happily impose that on the entire state.
You clearly articulated your belief that the same level of service, when performed by a municipality, would cost more. That is clearly stating that price is important to you. When you were shown to be wrong you changed to some amorphous concept of ‘happiness’ and now you are denying you ever made the claim about price.
Happiness of whomesoever is irrelevant: you actually and clearly articulated a fear that municipal service would meet neither your price nor your expectations. You have no actual evidence to support this assertion.
When called on this, you make an attempt at changing the goalposts from value to happiness. Typical right-wing tactic.
That is such a foreign concept to me. I have never paid for directly, nor ever had a problem with, curbside weekly trash pickup.
In Wakefield my trash is picked up every week efficiently with one driver using a lift. A separate truck picks up recyclables on the same day. Large items like furniture and appliances are picked up on Friday.
You get what you pay for. It’s called civilization.
For me Prop 2.5 is a case study of why direct democracy stinks. Representative government is the best balance between a far away Parliament and hereditary monarch who will always raise taxes without accountability and the people themselves who almost never will.
I’ll vote for Gonzalez if he will stick it to Harvard
I believe you would. But I — and it must be said, you — don’t have the faintest inkling why…