Tuesday, July 14, 2009

The dumbest thing I have heard all year

And that is saying something.

Regarding the controversial 'transgender rights' bill currently roiling Beacon Hill, deemed a civil rights issue by proponents and a restroom-safety issue by opponents, Governor Patrick today had this to say (from the State House News Service): “Somehow or other we manage at home with bathrooms that don’t have men and women [signs] on them... I think we can probably figure that out in public spaces, too.”

How patronizing. The flaws in this dismissive argument are almost too obvious to bother pointing out - beginning with the fact that 'at home' we know and usually trust the people who use our bathrooms. We know their gender. Usually those bathrooms are used individually, in private. They are a secure environment, parts of our homes. The list could go on.

The bill at issue would extend the state's anti-discrimination laws to cover "gender identity"; making it unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of how he or she (can I use those terms?) "present" themselves, gender-wise. An incontrovertible result of the bill would be that public bathrooms would be rendered in effect gender-neutral, since it would henceforth be illegal for any unit of government to prevent, say, a man from using the ladies' room, so long as that man is "presenting" as a woman - whatever that means.

Yesterday, a coalition of so-called women's groups gathered at the State House to advocate for passage of the bill. In so doing, they trotted out a familiar and bizarre argument (again, from the State House News):
"We came here today to support all women," said Vicky Steinberg, co-president of the Massachusetts chapter of NOW. "No one deserves to be fired, refused work, denied housing, education or credit, or to live in fear of violence because of his or her gender....Saying that this measure will compromise women's safety in bathrooms is misleading. It's scare tactics." Toni Troop, a spokeswoman for Jane Doe Inc., the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, agreed. "Opposing this bill does nothing to benefit or protect women and children." She said the majority of sexual assaults aren't committed by strangers in bathrooms. "They are committed in the home, by relatives or acquaintances."
Talk about a non-sequitur. Because "the majority of sexual assaults aren't committed by strangers in bathrooms," the public should not worry about opening public ladies' rooms - including those used by children - to any man who might want to put on a dress and use them. The "majority of sexual assaults aren't committed" in the hallways of the local sex offender halfway house either, but that does not mean I am going to send my daughter there for play time.

Opening public restrooms to whomever wants to use them will increase the chances of sexual assault in public restrooms. To deny that is to deny unfortunate reality: sex offenders exist, they are opportunistic, and some of them will take advantage of a new law allowing them unfettered - and legally-protected! - entry to heretofore semi-private spaces to which they were previously denied access. More, the semi-private spaces in question are, by their very nature, unmonitored. This notion that eradicating gender-based restrictions will not create dangerous situations is deliberately obtuse.

I characterized this odd and factually-counter intuitive argument as "familiar" above because it is very similar to an argument fronted by many of the same self-described advocates for women back in 2006, in response to gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey's famous 'parking garage' ad. At the time, these groups claimed that 'stranger rape' is a "myth," and made some of the same non-sequitur arguments about "the majority of sexual assaults." After several parking garage assaults earlier this summer that were anything but mythical, attorney Wendy Murphy skewered these non-arguments (and pointed out why they are dangerous in themselves) better than I can here.

In fact, as these episodes so vividly illustrate, many of our state's 'advocates for women' are advocates for liberal social policy first, and advocates for 'women' a distant second.

But back to the issue at hand: I have considerable sympathy for a person who is so confused about his or her own identity that he or she feels compelled to use a gender-inappropriate restroom. But public policy is often about weighing and balancing the legitimate and sometimes conflicting concerns of differently-situated citizens, and making the best possible policy to address the underlying issue. It is eminently legitimate for parents to be concerned about the inevitable implications of the current bill for public restroom safety. If the choice is between safety and making a minuscule subset of the population a little bit more comfortable in the midst of personal identity crises, policy ought to come down on the side of safety every time.

In this state and elsewhere, liberal Democrats are continually trying to extend the definition of "civil rights" to encompass virtually anything that anyone might want to do in the public space. Indeed, just prior to making his ham-handed home bathroom analogy, Governor Patrick today called the pending legislation "
a very straightforward question of human and civil rights." Elevation of an issue to that level is, of course, just another attempt to de-legitimize opposition. Who, after all, wants to be against 'human and civil rights'?

But it is not retrograde to insist that society maintain some bright lines. One need not be a neanderthal to object to the notion of a woman - or a girl - sharing a restroom with a gender-confused male. The law already protects transgendered people from violence and threats of violence, in restrooms and elsewhere, to exactly the same extent as it protects everyone else.
That is enough.

Governor Patrick's statements today are yet another reminder that for such a gifted political communicator, he is remarkably tone-deaf politically.

Monday, July 13, 2009

What's good for the goose...

...apparently is not good for the French Poitou donkey.

Governor Patrick is irked with the folks who run Zoo New England (operators of both the Stone and the Franklin Park Zoos) for stating publicly over the weekend that state budget cuts might force the closure of the zoos, which are approximately 60 percent state-funded, and even euthanization of some animals. "They also canceled a public event to welcome two French Poitou donkeys to the Franklin Park facility in honor of Bastille Day tomorrow." Mon Dieu!

According to the Globe, "Governor Deval Patrick yesterday accused Zoo New England officials of creating a false and inflammatory scare with their warning that state budget cuts may force them to close two Greater Boston zoos and euthanize some animals."

"In the midst of an economic crisis like this one, when families and businesses alike are making sacrifices, we would all do well to remain level-headed and focus on solutions," said Patrick's spokesman.

If Zoo New England officials are indeed using "scare tactics" to draw public attention to a perceived need for greater funding, they could perhaps be excused for assuming Governor Patrick, a virtuoso scare-monger in his own right, would approve of their methods.

Consider: 'If you do not restore state funding, we will be forced to euthanize our animals.'

Substitute "raise the gas tax" for "restore state funding." Then substitute "double tolls on the Pike" for "euthanize our animals;" and there you have the central argument of Governor Patrick's public (and ultimately failed) campaign for a massive gas tax increase earlier this year.

Knowing how the technique works, Patrick is confident that no animals will in fact be euthanized; just as tolls have not been doubled despite the public's refusal to accept his gas tax hike.

Still, it would be nice if on the topic of fiscal scare-mongering, the Governor would lead by example.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

An idea for a family outing

I took advantage of the beautiful weather today to take a long bike ride. Pedaling down Route 1A in Walpole, I passed a sign of the sort that might have designated a nice country store, or a cozy little B&B : "MassCor Showroom: Open to the Public!" Curious, I hit the brakes to read the fine print.

MassCor is short for Massachusetts Correctional. In this case, the correctional institution in question is MCI Cedar Junction, a maximum security prison that houses some of the state's most dangerous criminals. The "Showroom" that is open to the public sells items - stationery products, clothes, furniture - manufactured by the inmates.

When I worked for the state, my business cards were manufactured by MassCor. This saves the state money. Presumably (though I do not know for sure) sales of the other products made by inmates bring some small amount of revenue into the correctional system. All to the good.

But "open to the public"?

I wonder, how many members of the public this weekend thought to take a family trip to the gift shop at the local maximum security prison? I wonder how many have done so in the entire history of the MassCor Showroom? More to the point in these tough budgetary times, I wonder how the MassCor Showroom - and whatever tax dollars are spent on its staff and overhead - survived the Governor's tough choices and deep cuts?

Friday, July 10, 2009

Depends on how you define "populist"

Reacting yesterday to news of Charlie Baker's entrance to the gubernatorial race, gadfly Christy Mihos (R [sometimes], I [other times], quirky [all the time] - Brockton) commented, "I am not an institutional or an insider Republican... I’m an outsider, a populist Republican."

That got me pondering, is there a baseline of support required to self-designate as "populist"? Does 'populist' not imply 'popular'? Christy ran last time, and garnered somewhere between 6 and 7 percent of the vote. Is that enough to claim the 'populist' mantle?

On the other hand, we have this from today's Globe: "Charles D. Baker Jr. uttered two words in a generic conference room this week - 'I’m in' - that immediately jolted to life a state Republican Party that has struggled in recent years for its very existence."

Seems Charlie is already pretty popular.

Then I did some checking on the term 'populism' and my confusion was resolved.
Populism: the political philosophy of the People's Party.
History has many iterations of 'the People's party,' across the Globe. The most recent 'People's Party' here in the U.S. had its salad days in the early 1970s, formed as a coalition of anti-war groups that ran Dr. Benjamin Spock for president in 1971 on a platform of withdrawal from Vietnam, legalization of pot, and establishment of both minimum and maximum wages.

Dr. Spock garnered a tiny percentage of the vote, and then returned in 1975 to try again (this time as the party's vice presidential candidate) before presumably rejoining his crew members on the Enterprise and heading back out into space.

So now Christy's adoption of the term makes perfect sense.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Charlie Baker for Governor

In case anyone was wondering.

Why? Well, here are just a few initial thoughts:

Enormously impressive experience in both the public and the private sectors.

Public sector experience specifically focused on the state's finances - he was Secretary of Administration and Finance (top fiscal adviser) under both Governors Weld and Cellucci.

Private sector experience in the health care industry, an area of crucial concern to both the public and private sectors, turning Harvard Pilgrim into the most acclaimed health plan in the nation.

He even has municipal experience, as a selectman in his home town of Swampscott. Look for his opposition to downplay and even mock that - a dem pundit on Dan Rea's radio show last night was already trying this line: "the only elective office he's ever held..." Particularly in these trying times, though, a little bit of substantive experience dealing with municipal finances and the day-to-day problems facing our cities and towns would be truly invaluable for the next governor.

He is a Weld Republican - fiscally conservative and socially moderate - running in a state that elected the original Weld Republican to a second term by an unprecedented (and never since duplicated) landslide.

Finally - the ultimate litmus test for me - he is a great guy. More, he projects that trait effortlessly, engaging friend and new acquaintance alike with the same warmth, enthusiasm and genuine interest.

There are plenty more reasons for Massachusetts - Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike - to get behind Charlie Baker. I'll type about many of them in the months to come. For the time being, if you do not know much about him take advantage of the initial flurry of news coverage to become acquainted with Baker's experience, his persona and his positions. If you take the time to read my musings, I'm quite confident you will like what you see.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

I believe the children are our future... and we're doomed!

At least in Massachusetts.

Consider: This morning the Public Policy Institute, a lefty organization whose tag line is "strengthening the next generation of activists for social change," hosted a panel discussion for Massachusetts legislative aides. Beyond the sponsorship, two factoids tell all you need to know about what these legislative 'children' are being taught: (1) the event took place at the Boston HQ of SEIU 615; and (2) the discussion was moderated by one Maryann Calia, former chief of staff to indicted former Speaker Sal DiMasi.

No word on whether 'Who Do I Call When My Subpoena Arrives' or 'Your New Best Friend is Named Miranda' were items on the agenda. But the State House News did report this related golden nugget of advice, impressed upon the young minds by former state consumer affairs director and current lobbyist Ann Walsh: "What you hear in this office stays in this office... You need someone who has an appreciation for that."

"The panelists, each of who began as staffers, said the best qualities in a chief of staff include devout loyalty and a premium on secrecy," according to the State House News. Ah yes - legislative Omerta. In the wake of Speaker Sal, that's what the next generation of Hill staffers need to hear.

Here are a few other choice bits of mentoring, all courtesy of the SHNS:
Former Senate President (and current lobbyist) Bob Travaglini: "Don’t ever be afraid to do a favor for somebody who’s your friend... If it’s the right thing to do, do it. Do it."

Congressman Michael Capuano: "Somehow you’re supposed to appoint people you don’t know based on some resume ... What kind of person would run for an office and then have an ability to hire five or 500 or 5,000 people and not turn to the people who held the sign for them in the rain? If you don’t do that, you’re in trouble on reelection." [For the record, I love Rep. Capuano, for exactly this reason. He just... says stuff.]

Travaglini again, discussing the ideal chief of staff: "He or she must have the power to deliver... If the body doesn’t believe that that person can pick up he phone and make things move, that person’s not effective. Maryann [Calia] knows this, she was a tremendous chief of staff. She and I talked more than I talked to Sal, half the time." [Lucky for him!]

And finally, Capuano once more, still... saying stuff: "If I cannot speak freely in front of you, you won’t be here for very long...I probably have too many gruff words to say on occasion... If you can’t take it, don’t work here, because I’m not going to apologize ... I have to be able to blow off steam like everybody else. I’ve been married for 35 years, I’ve been mad at my wife occasionally. It doesn’t mean I don’t love her."
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the crash course in Massachusetts Legislating - 101, brought to you by the public employees' union, Speaker Sal's left-hand gal, and the friendly folks who built you the government you enjoy today: Patronage, secrecy and blowing off steam - get those three things down pat and you too could enjoy a lifelong career in the Massachusetts State House.

Points for honesty (or hubris?) to the panel though. That's some pretty frank talk right there.

A rose by any other name...

... would smell as sweet. By this turn of phrase the Bard was saying that what we call a thing matters less than what the thing is. The same concept applies with equal force, if different olfactory characterization, to a turd.

The truth of the rose maxim is self-evident. Still, quite often it is useful to call a thing what it is - to describe it accurately. Politicians expend much time and effort trying to spin away negative, but accurate, labels.

So it is with Governor Patrick's reaction to yesterday's harsh criticism of his party by soon-to-be Independent Treasurer and future gubernatorial candidate, Tim Cahill (I-Wannabegovernor). According to the State House News this afternoon:
Patrick brushed off Cahill’s criticism of the party as one steered by a tax-and-spend philosophy as a “canard.” That criticism, Patrick said, “is old and it’s tired, and all the labels and all the shorthand of politics and political speech is not very useful at a time when we’re dealing with unprecedented challenges.”
Patrick wants to be called a 'reformer.' He wants to be called a 'change-agent.' He does not want to be called a 'tax-and-spender.' So "tax-and-spend" becomes "old, tired... shorthand;" a "canard" to be brushed off with rhetoric that itself became old and tired shortly after Patrick took office and the truth became all too evident.

Here is the truth: A tax-and-spender by any other name will tax-and-spend as much. Patrick cannot say Cahill's criticism is untrue; he and the Democratic Legislature have taxed, and they have spent. Then they taxed some more and then they spent some more.

"[A]ll the labels and all the shorthand of politics is not very useful at a time when we're dealing with unprecedented challenges," huffs the Governor. Ah, but how are they dealing with those challenges? By taxing-and-spending, that's how.

Someone predicted, repeatedly, in 2006 that this is how a Patrick governorship would pan out. Patrick responded then in much the same way as he's responding now, insisting it was somehow wrong - tired, old politics, cynical, etc. - to label him for what he so clearly was.

The voters bought it - accepting the turd he offered, inhaling deeply and thanking him for a rose. If Patrick does in fact run for reelection (have I mentioned that I do not think he will?), he may find that the voters have taken another sniff and recognized the true nature of what he handed them in November 2006.

Monday, July 6, 2009

This is how people spend money they did not earn themselves

This from the State House News Service this evening:
A spending bill Gov. Deval Patrick filed last Thursday for the fiscal year that ended last Wednesday contains $3.04 million to ramp up the transportation bureaucracy overhaul, funding administration officials said might be required in future years. The mini-budget, totaling $64 million, demarcates the money for “the implementation of transportation reform,” referring to the sweeping restructuring law that Patrick signed last month.

Administration officials said the revenue would pay for necessary start-up costs, as the state moves to abolish the Mass. Turnpike Authority, compressing disparate transportation agencies under the new Mass. Department of Transportation. The law establishes an Office of Transition Management under Patrick’s budget office.

“As you can imagine, the transportation reform law requires a massive undertaking to radically transform our state's transportation agencies and we are committed to doing this right,” said Colin Durant, a spokesman for Transportation Secretary James Aloisi, in an email Monday...

Durant said the funding will not pay for any “specific items.”

Legislative officials said they were uncertain what the money funded.
If you didn't laugh, you'd have to cry. Three million, forty thousand dollars is what the Administration has earmarked for, essentially, start-up costs for the state's new transportation uber-bureaucracy. This is what it will take to 'do this right.' Not three million, fifty thousand. Not three million, thirty-nine thousand and fifty-two cents. Three million, forty thousand dollars... which will not pay for any "specific items." That's a lot of non-specific items, no?

Reading the article, I had an epiphany. This, right here, is what is wrong with government (any government, over time - not just ours). This is how people spend money when they have not earned it themselves.

Someone decided that in order to properly consolidate the state's sprawling transportation bureaucracies - to 'do it right' - they'd need some walking around money. How much? A few million and change ought to do it. That person fed the idea to someone high enough up in the Patrick Administration to have input into the Governor's 'mini-budget,' who fed it to the number crunchers. And voila - $3.04 million more of your dollars are shifted from the general fund to some bureaucrat's discretionary spending account, with nary a second thought until the State House News came a-callin' some time today.

At that point, Administration officials pulled out the line-item spreadsheet (and, by the way, there is one - you don't get to $3.04 million without some "specific items") and decided it would not make for good press, and so poor Colin Durant was sent out to tell reporters that over $3 million is being spent to no specific purpose. Who knows what that spreadsheet - which in all likelihood really does not exist anymore - contained. Probably embarrassing spend-thriftery along the lines of "$1.25 M - stationery and business cards" or "$732,014.95 - upgrades to consolidated restroom facilities."

The point is that the decision was made in the first instance to spend this money to bankroll a consolidation that is supposed to save taxpayer dollars. The point is that, called out, the people who made that call decided it is less embarrassing to claim no specific purpose attached to the spending than to fess up to their true intentions.

The point is that the people spending your money have no respect for your money.

Monday Morning Miscellany

Howie Carr's column today is particularly good, concerning one of my favorite current topics: the increasing resemblance of Massachusetts public employees' unions to classic movie mobsters. It used to be that the employees of an enterprise - public or private - instinctively understood the concept of the rising tide; the success and continued viability of the enterprise inured to the benefit of its employees. No more. Now, as Howie notes by way of effective analogy to a mob 'bust out,' unions exist primarily to wring every possible concession from an enterprise, regardless of the effects on its long-term prospects. Those inevitable effects can be seen from Detroit's auto-makers and most of our domestic airlines to our public schools and metropolitan fire departments. This is not a knock, by the way, on unionized workers, many or most of whom are just as honest, hard-working and productive as anyone else (and many of whom have literally no choice but to join a union in order to get and keep their jobs).

This is a bad sign for transportation reform. Based on the Globe's inability to get a copy of the budget the Turnpike Authority's board just passed for the upcoming year, it seems the Governor's board appointees are using the excuse of pending consolidation to duck even rudimentary disclosure. Regardless of whether the entity is called the Turnpike Authority or the Transportation Department, those are your tax and toll dollars - $430 million of them - being spent, apparently in ways that the powers that be would prefer not appear in the newspaper.

This is just disturbing. The US House of Representatives has 435 members. Per the Constitution, the allocation of seats to the various states is determined by population. Here in the Commonwealth, our population is relatively stagnant, if not shrinking. Other states are growing at a much faster clip. This sums it up:

The state [of Massachusetts] has grown 2.3 percent in the eight years since, based on the bureau's 2008 population estimates. The average growth per state for that time in the United States is 8 percent, according to the Web site. Virginia, which has 11 members of Congress, grew 9.7 percent in that time, and Arizona, which has eight U.S. representatives, grew at a 26.7 percent rate since 2000.

Arizona is going to pick up seats. They have to come from somewhere. That "somewhere" is likely to be here. It's no coincidence that "city clerks have already met to talk Census strategy with Congresswoman Niki Tsongas, D-Lowell..." As the junior member of the Massachusetts delegation, she has reason to be particularly concerned. At base, though, our population is what it is. Secretary of State Galvin should take care this cycle to ensure that political zeal does not lead to mathematical shenanigans. As proud citizen of Massachusetts, I am concerned about the likely prospect of our state losing representation in Washington. As a taxpayer, though, I'm not sure Congress won't be just a little better off with one fewer Massachusetts Democrat.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

What a state we live in

Our legislature just passed - and our Governor signed - a budget that increases taxes by over a billion dollars in the midst of a deep recession.

Today the Globe runs an extended article lauding the Legislature for... passing our budget on time (for the first time in four years).

Massachusetts!

Friday, July 3, 2009

Yes, I am still convinced Patrick is not going to run for a second term

Yesterday came news that Doug Rubin, Governor Patrick's Chief of Staff for lo these past two years, since he was brought in to right the ship in the turbulent wake of the Caddy/curtains scandal, is stepping down. Initial headlines had him leaving the State House to join Patrick's reelection campaign.

I immediately received several emails from people who are aware of my favorite pet theory: that Patrick does not in fact plan to run for election to a second term next year.

"Looks like you were wrong," was the general theme of those emails.

I am sticking to my theory. Seems the initial news coverage missed an important wrinkle, caught this morning by the the AP: "Doug Rubin told The Associated Press on Thursday he will be resigning in the next several weeks to return to the political consulting practice he left behind when he joined Patrick's staff in the spring of 2007."

This could be a distinction without a difference - a way for Rubin to make a larger check from his own "political consulting practice" while working, in effect, for only one client. I suspect, however, that in truth Rubin is in fact returning to his consulting practice - with just enough lead time before next year's election cycle ramps up to gather some clients in addition to the supposed Patrick re-elect effort. To wait any longer would mean to sacrifice the cycle.

I would not be at all surprised to find the Tim Murray Committee on that list of clients. Or the Tim Cahill Committee, for that matter (Rubin worked for Treasurer Tim back in the day, before hooking up with Patrick).

Yes, I realize that I may be guilty here of seeing just the facts that I want to see - or just seeing the facts as I want to see them. The recent show Patrick has been making of ramping up his campaign may mean simply that he is ramping up his campaign. But I do not think so.

It will be important for Patrick, as a legacy matter, to avoid being succeeded by a Republican. All of the effort he is putting in now will easily be repurposed to his Lieutenant Governor's campaign to succeed him. That includes the assistance of David Plouffe, President Obama's former campaign manager who recently came to Massachusetts, purportedly to steer the Patrick reelect effort.

Why would President Obama's guru spend a cycle with Tim Murray, erstwhile King of Worcester?

Not to put to fine a point on it, but there is a certain someone in a big White House in DC with a vested interest in avoiding voter repudiation of the politics of 'Yes We Can.'

Anyhow, that's my theory - and I'm stickin' to it.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Now that's a loaded headline

State House News Service last evening:
PATRICK 'DONE WITH TAXES FOR NOW,' BUT SIGNALS INTEREST IN PROGRESSIVE TAXES

How's that for a loaded headline?

How far our Governor has come in just over three short years, from "no plans to raise taxes" to "done with taxes for now" following a 2 year, $2 billion tax-hiking spree. No longer are political observers forced to wonder what he meant by "Yes We Can!" He meant 'yes we can raise your taxes. Again, and again, and again.'

The interview beneath that headline is equally ominous. Here are a few excerpts:
"What we have in Massachusetts is a number of wealthy people who would be willing to contribute more - not all of them, but certainly have the capacity to contribute more - to relieve some of the pressure on the working poor," Patrick said...
Patrick said, "We don't have many really progressive mechanisms in Massachusetts, and we're going to have to sort that out in the fullness of time, put it that way."...
Human services, education advocates and others argue that adequate state programs require increased revenue, and say the beneficiaries of those services should pay their share. Patrick told "Greater Boston" host Emily Rooney on WGBH Wednesday that he had detected an "appetite" among the public for a graduated income tax, but said such changes required a careful approach...
Patrick said that during his summer town hall tour attendees have urged him to stay his course. "I get a lot of 'hang in there, you know, we love what you're doing, don't let the bastards get you down,' that sort of thing, and they could be talking about any number of bastards, by the way," Patrick said during a News Service interview.
Between the "appetite" he detects for yet more tax increases and his claim that people have been telling him "we love what you're doing," one guesses that Patrick has been hanging around with a very discrete, insular group lately - a group drawn from a pool no larger than 17% of the voting public, based on the most recent polling.

In any event, as I read Governor Patrick's casual reference to "a number of wealthy people who would be willing to contribute more... have the capacity to contribute more" I am reminded for the second time in as many weeks of the maxim: 'Capital is mobile. So are capitalists.'

If Governor Patrick wants to go down the road to "progressive" taxation, we'll find out just how many people "would be willing to contribute more," and how many would be willing to take their families, their businesses and their capital to a state with less "appetite" for spending.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

A penny on the dollar

Apparently 'a penny on the dollar' can be either a lot or a little, depending on the point one is trying to make.

Back in April when Massachusetts Democrats first started their push for a 25% increase to the sales tax (which goes into effect next month), we were told that the increase would amount to just a "penny on the dollar." Such a piddling amount - the change that falls into the couch - who could object?

Now fast-forward to this month's budget imbroglio. To justify the fact that the budget passed by the Democratic Legislature and signed yesterday by our Democratic Governor contains over a billion dollars in tax increases we are told repeatedly that it represents a gut-wrenching exercise in tough choices and spending restraint. It is "without question an austere - and in some respects, painful - budget." (Governor Patrick). It is "perhaps one of the most difficult [budgets] in our state's history." (Speaker DeLeo). "The Senate and House made tough decisions." (Senate President Therese Murray).

Last week I did a little napkin math and was unable to come up with a level of spending reduction that would substantiate all of this heated rhetoric. And then Monday, in a story about Governor Patrick's budget signing ceremony, the State House News made this observation:
The budget's spending level cuts 3 percent from the one Patrick signed last year, a package reduced during this fiscal year as state revenues have tanked... If pending fiscal 2010 supplemental appropriations are factored in, spending in the fiscal year that starts Wednesday would rise to $27.316 billion, less than 1 percent below projected fiscal 2009 spending. Much of the supplemental request represents Patrick's insistence on spending that lawmakers have rejected.
Read that again. The Legislature's budget cuts spending by 3 percent (3 pennies on the dollar). Given his druthers, Governor Patrick would enact a budget that cuts spending by one percent. One percent! The proverbial "penny on the dollar."

This is the spending restraint that Governor Patrick would have you believe is "austere - and in some respects, painful." This is the budget that Speaker DeLeo says presented difficulties of historic proportions. High end, three percent. Low end, one percent. That is the net-net of Senate President Murray's "tough decisions."

Back to my initial point, though: one percent. The "penny on the dollar" that is no big deal when it comes out of your wallet suddenly represents privation beyond all belief when wrung from the Commonwealth's spend-heavy budget.

Remember this dissonance next year, when the Democrats set out to convince you that they had no choice but to raise taxes by billions of dollars while your family struggles through the current recession.

This man is not running for a second term

I know, I know. He's actively fund raising. He is meeting with his key supporters. President Obama sent his very own campaign manager to help out. But I am sticking to my earlier prediction: Governor Patrick is not going to run for a second term.

Here are a few headlines from today's papers:

Gov Patrick: Don't expect Mass sales tax holiday

Sales tax hike balances state budget

Patrick hints at hike in gas tax

That last one is the capper. A guy gearing up for a reelection bid, his approval ratings in the toilet, in the process of signing a 25 % sales tax increase does not - does not - "hint at" yet another broad based tax hike. Not with Obama's political magician calling his shots. Not when he knows that in a state grown used to the shaded meanings of Patrick parlance, a "hint" at yet another tax will necessarily be read as virtually an iron-clad guarantee.

No, this is not a guy preparing the ground for another run. This is a guy who has decided to heck with it, he's going to govern as he wanted to govern all along. He is going to finish out his one term by enacting "revenue measures" the likes of which no politician contemplating a future run could ever support, and then he is going to cut bait and head to Washington to join his friend the President.

Here's what bothers me most. Beyond the violence that the Patrick experiment is doing to the Commonwealth's fiscal situation, the worst damage he may end up doing is foreshadowed in another troubling headline today- Survey: Voters favor Mihos.

Dumbing down "equity"

"Toll equity." It's a buzz phrase in the communities running west of Boston, along the infamous Massachusetts Turnpike, most frequently heard emanating from the mouths of office holders and office seekers.

"Toll equity." The meaning of the phrase ought to be straightforward. Equity in tolling. "Equity," defined: "something that is fair and just." So "toll equity" as applied to, say, one Massachusetts citizen living in MetroWest as compared to another living on the North Shore ought to mean "fairness and justice in tolling."

More simply, it ought to mean that citizen A does not pay more than citizen B to use the Commonwealth's roadways. But apparently that is not what it means.

Exhibit A for the current accepted usage of the phrase "toll equity" is today's letter to the editor of the Salem News, penned by one Robert DeLeo, the currently un-indicted Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. In the midst of a twisted and tortured happy-face justification of a budget that boosted taxes by over a billion dollars rests this little nugget:
On transportation reform, the House and Senate have passed a landmark bill that eliminates the Turnpike Authority, ensures toll equity and abolishes the "23 and out" rule at the MBTA...
According to our Governor and his co-conspirators in the legislature, transportation reform coupled with a 25% increase in the state sales tax allowed the Pike board to cancel (more likely postpone, but why quibble?) a scheduled toll hike on the Turnpike. That's all well and good, but in what conceivable sense does that "ensure toll equity"? Let's review:

Yesterday, a Mass Pike commuter was obliged to pay a toll on his way to and from work. Tomorrow, the next day, and for every foreseeable day after, that commuter will be obliged to pay that same toll. In addition, he'll pay 25% more in tax on anything he might stop and purchase along the way - and much more than that if gets a yearning for a bottle or wine or a six-pack to bring home.

Yesterday, a commuter on I-93 was not obliged to pay a toll on his way to and from work. Tomorrow, the next day, and for every foreseeable day after, that commuter will pay a 25% higher sales tax on purchases, and will get smacked in the wallet at the package store, but for him - no toll.

To Speaker DeLeo, and to the MetroWest legislative delegation that enthusiastically echoes his bogus characterization of the fruits of transportation reform, this constitutes "equity."

A decision not to make the tolls more unfair is claimed as a victory for absolute fairness. Perpetuation of an inherently inequitable situation is characterized as "equity."

Baloney.

Monday, June 29, 2009

This "watchdog" has a blind spot

I almost missed this one, from Saturday's Globe: "Patrick stresses upside of tax hikes."

In addition to the unintentionally hilarious headline, the article contains this gem:
“There’s no fiscal crisis of the last 50 years that hasn’t had both major spending cuts and a broad-based tax increase,’’ said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded fiscal watchdog group.
Oh really? Let's cast our minds way, waaaaay back - to the fiscal crisis of 2002-2003. Which "broad-based tax" did Governor Romney enact to pull us out of that one? That's right - none of them. Governor Romney held the line and balanced the budget with tough cuts in spending.

He also raised some targeted fees for state services. Romney took some flack for that later on from critics who objected to his claim that he never raised taxes. But fees, paid voluntarily in exchange for a service, are very different from compulsory taxation. And in any event they certainly are not "broad based taxes."

The Globe never fails to label Michael Widmer the president of a "business-funded" group. Presumably that should lend his pronouncements some conservative cred. The truth is that much more often than not he opposed Governor Romney, and much more often than not his 'analysis' supports Governor Patrick. In any event, his claim that "“There’s no fiscal crisis of the last 50 years that hasn’t had both major spending cuts and a broad-based tax increase,’’ is patently false. One might have expected the Globe's memory to cover at least the current decade, but no matter - they've been in the tank for broad-based tax increases all along.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Breaking news from the Land of Duh.

Globe headline this morning: Patrick hints he will sign tax hike.

Well knock me over with a feather!

This headline - or one much like it - became inevitable on election night 2006, when the voters decided to go with Patrick's gossamer promises and soaring rhetoric over common sense and basic math.

Throughout his campaign against Kerry Healey (my friend and former boss - biases right out here on my sleeve), Patrick pledged all things to all people, piling up hundreds of millions in proposed new spending. Pressed to reconcile his grandiose ambitions with his adamant denial of plans to raise taxes, Patrick unleashed his patented brow furrow, and blithely asserted that his plans would be funded through "efficiencies in government."

Once safely ensconced in office, Patrick dropped the subterfuge and became what he is: a tax-and-spender. The drapes and the Caddy were just the surface. Instead of "finding efficiencies" he added thousands to the state workforce. Instead of "making government do more with less," he increased his own staff and inflated their salaries by tens of thousands (each) over what his predecessor's staff was paid. Instead of "changing the culture on Beacon Hill" he embraced it - hiring a sketchy Big Dig lobbyist to run Transportation Department (and the Big Dig), and doling out patronage appointments like a 30 year legislator.

"I have no plans to raise taxes" quickly gave way to a billion dollars in new levies on the Commonwealth's businesses. His adamant campaign pledge to reduce property taxes morphed first into "openness" to a gas tax hike, and then into dogged advocacy for giving us the highest gas tax in the nation.

So no, it is not a surprise that this morning the Globe tells us that Governor Patrick is about to hit all of us with yet another cool billion in new taxes.

Patrick is fortunate to have the economic downturn to shield him from blame for his blatant reneging on crystal clear campaign promises, but that too is disingenuous. Patrick was inflating the state work force, signing budgets far in excess of reasonable revenue expectations and sliding comfortably into the "Beacon Hill culture" long before hard economic reality took a nosedive.

He had us firmly on the road back to Taxachusetts from day one. The downturn just pushed things along a little faster.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Attacking perceptions and ignoring reality

In a typically grandiose and self-congratulatory announcement yesterday evening of what state legislators are humbly calling a "historic" ethics reform package, Speaker Bob DeLeo (D-Care to go for four in a row?) made a telling statement characterizing the ethical problems the bill supposedly addresses (from today's Globe): "The public has come to view people in public life as playing by a different set of rules than everyone else..."

Get that? The problem is how you and I have "come to view people in public life." And how, exactly, have we come to that view? The Speaker did not say.

Is it perhaps more the problem that "people in public life" have "come to view" themselves "as playing by a different set of rules than everyone else"?

Anyhow, it is this self-exonerating conception of the problem - one of perception - to which the highly-touted ethics reform package released yesterday addresses itself. Again from DeLeo: "By filing this bill, we will begin to restore the public’s confidence in government. This bill sends a very clear message to everyone..."

Ah yes, they have filed a bill. What a clear message! Here are a few other messages, arguably clearer:

(1) Senator Diane Wilkerson (D-Aisle 9, Ladies' Undergarments). In 1997 she was convicted of federal tax evasion and sentenced to house arrest. She kept her seat and positions on powerful committees, and enjoyed the continued support of her Democratic colleagues.

In 2001 she was fined by the State Ethics Commission for failing to report that a bank for which she carried water in the Senate was paying her $20K a year as a "consultant." She kept her seat and positions on powerful committees, and enjoyed the continued support of her Democratic colleagues.

In 2005 she paid $40K to settle a suit brought by the Attorney General over a number of sketchy campaign contributions and expenditures. She kept her seat... etc., etc., etc.

During primary season in 2008, with full knowledge of all of the above, Governor Patrick recorded this infamous robo-call endorsement of Wilkerson. Now there's a clear message!



It was not until federal corruption charges and widely-circulated photographs of the esteemed Senator stuffing wads of cash into her undergarments in a Beacon Hill eatery became public that she lost her long-standing support amongst Democratic leadership and was forced, finally, to resign.

(2) Senator James Marzilli (D-LoonyTunes). Last year this sitting Senator and champion of the left groped several women in downtown Lowell, led police on a footchase and then bizarrely gave the name of a Senate colleague to his captors. He was allowed by Democratic leadership to retain both his seat and his powerful committee assignments (and the salaries that went with both), until news broke that while under indictment he had purported to represent the state Senate at a conference in Germany. The cumulative effect of that revelation and the exploding Wilkerson scandal, not his colleagues, finally forced him from office. Now there's a clear message!

(3) Sal. In January, House Democrats overwhelmingly supported Sal Dimasi's reelection as Speaker of the House, despite the fact that a close friend and associate of Dimasi had recently been indicted by the state Attorney General, charged with peddling influence with the Speaker, and the fact that an ongoing federal grand jury investigation into DiMasi and his associates was well known. Now there's a clear message!

Months later, DiMasi was - as expected - indicted, leading directly to a final push for passage of the ethics reforms that are so much in the news today. In case you missed it, DiMasi is the third straight Speaker of the Massachusetts House to be indicted. Message!

But hey, our legislature has filed a bill. That bill will force a lot of people to fill out a lot more forms before seeking to influence their government. That bill will impose some enhanced penalties on public officials caught with their hands in the till. That bill will subject more municipal meetings to the state's open meetings law (though, as the Globe notes, "they [our elected representatives] made sure the Legislature would still be exempt.").

That is all wonderful. But...

Does anyone really think that Diane Wilkerson was passed wads of dirty cash because her crooked 'donors' were not legally obliged to fill out sufficient paperwork?

Does anyone really think that Jim Marzilli went off a-gropin' of a late summer's eve because the penalties for public groppage were too lax?

Does anyone really think that Sal decided to dip his beak into a state contract because he did not fear the consequences if he were caught?

Of course not. These people did these things because they were convinced that they could get away with it. More, based on recent and repeated precedent, they were convinced that if they did not get away with it, they would be protected by Beacon Hill's wagon-circling culture.

That cultural problem is endemic. It is most decidedly a problem of deep-rooted reality, not one of perception. It will not be solved by today's bill, or by any bill.

It will be solved, eventually, by the voters.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

On gaming, a cautionary tale to our south

A few years back I sat on a Friday night having dinner with friends in a Mexican restaurant in DC, where at the time I lived the footloose and (mildly) fancy-free life of a post-college bachelor working on the Hill. One friend was struck with the bright idea of paying our check and loading into a car for an impromptu road trip to Atlantic City, where none of us had ever been. Because we could, we did.

Roughly 12 hours later, each of us thoroughly defeated by games we did not really understand, we lined up at the teller window in a cheesy Atlantic City casino to cash out what remained of our depleted cache of chips. We'd had a good time, none of us had done irrevocable damage to his finances; breakfast and then sleep before the long drive back to DC beckoned.

Then, a tap at my shoulder. (I should pause here to note that I am trying mightily not to over-dramatize this anecdote. Certain adjectives are necessary, though, to convey the reality of what happened.) I turned and looked into a pair of bleary, panicked eyes. These eyes should have been sitting in the face of a man about to ask me to call 9-1-1, his wife was having a heart attack. But they weren't. These eyes belonged to a man of about 40 years of age, his arm extended towards me and his hand pinching a wedding band between two fingers as he pushed it in my face for inspection.

"It's platinum. Give me two hundred dollars?"

I shook my head, startled. Then, to each of my friends, pleading. "It's platinum? One seventy? It's platinum."

He moved off down the line, readjusting his price to $200 for the next group of potential buyers. My friends and I cashed out and headed for breakfast. On the way back to DC we kept revisiting that guy and his panicked eyes. To my knowledge none of us is even a casual gambler today, and whenever gambling or Atlantic City comes up in conversation it is a sure bet that someone will speculate as to the fate of that man and his platinum ring.

I am reminded again of that unfortunate man as I read the Globe article this morning about the bankruptcy of the Twin Rivers 'racino' in Lincoln, Rhode Island. The parallels between my guy with his platinum band and the State of Rhode Island with its own gambling addiction are, again, probably overwrought and a little strained - but they are there.

Like the man in Atlantic City, Rhode Island has gambled itself into a hole. Twin River is, according to the Globe, "singlehandedly Rhode Island’s third-largest revenue stream, after income and sales taxes." Did I mention it is also bankrupt? Well, it is. And so like the guy in AC who gambled himself into a hole so deep that he was willing to sell the wedding ring off his finger, Rhode Island is desperate.

"To help the Lincoln, R.I., gaming emporium stay afloat, [Rhode Island Governor] Carcieri plans to allow Twin River to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week..."

"'I’m not a big fan of gambling, because I do not think it is economic development,’ the governor said. 'We have it; it’s here,' he said at the press conference. 'My job is to do the best we can to protect it and keep the taxpayers healthy.’"

It seems not to concern the Governor that the variety of "taxpayer" likely to be gambling in the wee hours of the morning on a weekday is anything but "healthy." To the contrary, many of them are likely to bear a striking resemblance - especially in the eyes - to the man who tried to sell me his wedding ring in Atlantic City over a decade ago.

Like Governor Carcieri, I'm 'not a big fan of gambling.' But I recognize that for many, many people it is a relatively harmless form of recreation. We also live in a free country, where we are entitled to spend our own money as we wish, even if how we spend it lands us in a cheesy casino in the middle of the night, literally hocking the family jewels.

My point here is not to proselytize. All I am saying is that the situation in Rhode Island, with its over-reliance on gambling revenues and the life-destroying desperation measures that over-reliance has prompted, might be a good object lesson to keep in mind later this year - when the usual suspects on Beacon Hill start to push state-sanctioned gambling as a budgetary cure-all.

UPDATE: Treasurer and gubernatorial hopeful Tim Cahill just released his analysis of the Twin River bankruptcy and what it means to prospects for gaming in the Commonwealth. From the State House News:
The reported bankruptcy of Twin River, a slot parlor in Rhode Island, is something Massachusetts may be able to “take advantage of” as the size of the region’s gaming industry changes, Treasurer Tim Cahill said Wednesday. Cahill said the bankruptcy filing is the result of a bad deal approved by the developer, guaranteeing that 61 percent of revenue would go back to the Rhode Island state government. “Governments get greedy and the folks that want to build these things will say almost anything just to get their foot in the door,” he said. “They’re paying the state too much and the credit markets have changed in the last year.” Cahill, who has outlined a plan to introduce slot parlors in Massachusetts and has previously suggested bringing in full-fledged casin, has said that a smaller take for the state would ensure that slot parlors are able to reinvest in themselves, make improvements, and stay solvent. The treasurer said that expanded gambling is the third largest revenue source for the Rhode Island government.
The Treasurer just fell several rungs in the estimation of at least one Massachusetts voter. What a knuckle-headed analysis. The Twin River bankruptcy, not 45 minutes drive from Boston, does not provide an opportunity for Massachusetts. It does lay bare two fatal flaws in the pro-casino argument:

(1) The regional market for gambling is not infinite. Far from it. Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods (both "destination resort casinos" of the variety favored by Governor Patrick) are both hemorrhaging money in the current downturn. Twin River (a gaming parlor of the variety favored by Treasurer Cahill) cannot keep its head above water. From where, then are the gamblers to come to fill either the multiple Massachusetts destination resort casinos Patrick is seeking, or the slot parlors Cahill wants? And

(2) Gambling is not a budgetary panacea. To the contrary, as Rhode Island so starkly demonstrates, state-sanctioned gaming tends to have the same deleterious effects on state finances as gambling so often has on personal finances.

Okay... maybe now I am proselytizing just a little bit.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

"Capital is mobile. So are capitalists."

This useful reminder comes from a recent edition of National Review, in a blurb about the inevitable and yet somehow unexpected reaction of wealthy Maryland taxpayers to that state's attempt to balance its budget on their backs:
Maryland has discovered that you can try to soak the rich, but the rich know how to swim across the Potomac. Faced with a budget shortfall, Maryland’s state legislators enacted a higher tax bracket for millionaires — 6.25 percent on top of federal and local taxes. One-third of Maryland’s millionaires vanished from the tax rolls, many seeking haven in Virginia, Delaware, and Florida. The result: Even with the higher rate, Maryland is now collecting $100 million a year less from the guys in monocles and top hats. Capital is mobile. So are capitalists.
As is so often the case, a tax increase intended to (in liberal parlance) "raise revenue" ended up having the opposite effect. The state takes a larger share of a smaller pie, leaving it - and the taxpayers - with less pie.

Low, stable, predictable tax rates attract wealth, whether from wealthy individuals, from businesses or by encouraging investment. High taxes and politically-motivated tax-attacks on "the rich" (again, whether individuals or businesses) repel wealth.

Massachusetts, with its high cost of living and a political climate that was rated among the most unfriendly to business in the nation even before the current downturn, has been repelling business and individual investment for some time now.

Perhaps next year might be a good time to try a different approach?

Monday, June 22, 2009

Watch Governor Patrick on this one.

Last week I noted the surprising inclusion in the transportation reform bill of a provision eliminating the odious Massachusetts Turnpike Unions and their contracts - an absolute prerequisite for achieving any real dollar savings from the consolidation of the state's transportation bureaucracies.

As the bill was coming up for a hurried vote in both chambers of the Massachusetts Legislature, the state AFL-CIO fired off an indignant letter threatening legislators with withheld endorsements should they support the bill. The threat fell flat and the bill passed both chambers easily, with only a few union stalwarts voicing protests during the brief debate.

Now the unions are turning to their last remaining champion with a variant of the same threat, in a final effort to save the egregious contracts that helped bury the Turnpike Authority under a mountain of bills and red tape. From the State House News:
UNIONS ASK PATRICK FOR PIKE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING HELP: The state’s largest union group is urging Gov. Deval Patrick to strike a section of the pending transportation overhaul that labor advocates say undermines bargaining rights of Turnpike Authority employees. The bill calls for the maintenance of current collective bargaining agreements until they lapse, then for the state’s personnel administrator to work with the new Mass. Department of Transportation to establish new state job titles for the former Pike employees. Under the language of Section 142, those employees would then receive wages and benefits consistent with the state’s bargaining unit contract applicable to their new titles. “We asked the governor to send back changes to Sect. 142 that protect the collective bargaining agreements of the workers of the Turnpike,” said Mass. AFL-CIO spokesman Timothy Sullivan.
Note what it is that the AFL-CIO is asking the Governor to do. The Turnpike is being absorbed into the state's larger transportation system (where it ought to have been all along). As part of that absorption, Turnpike employees will labor under their current contracts until those contracts expire. They will then "receive wages and benefits consistent with the state's bargaining unit contact applicable to their new titles." In English this means: 'they will then get the same wages and benefits as other state employees doing the same jobs.'

This is the concept - parity - that the union bigs find so offensive. One small aspect of the Pike's dysfunction was the fact that over generous management ceded routinely to union contract demands, resulting in pay disparities in favor of Pike employees as compared to comparably-employed workers elsewhere in the transportation system. A plow driver on the Pike makes more - as much as a third more - than a plow driver on I-93. A maintenance worker on the Pike makes more than a maintenance worker on I-95. A toll-taker on the Pike makes more than... well, more than just about anyone on the planet whose responsibilities consist mainly of standing at a cash register and making change.

I was troubled (though not surprised!) to find that this situation will apparently persist even after consolidation, at least until "current collective bargaining agreements... lapse." The unions are asking Patrick to perpetuate this situation, presumably forever. Under their formulation, two workers in the state transportation department doing the exact same job would be paid much differently, for the sole reason that one of them used to labor for the Turnpike Authority.

Think about the assumption that underlies this position. To the union bosses, a negotiated contract creates rights not only for the duration of the contract; those "rights," once negotiated, are supposed to last forever. They want the Governor to "protect the collective bargaining agreements of the workers of the Turnpike" - by which they mean their inflated salaries, their crippling overtime rules, their unsustainable benefits - forever.

If Governor Patrick rolls over on this one, he will have eviscerated transportation reform and negated much of the potential savings to be realized through agency consolidation.

Many tea leaves will be spread out for reading, especially concerning Patrick's own plans for the upcoming election cycle, based on how he responds to this union request/threat.

We'd rather keep our money, thanks.

In one of the most transparently political ploys for favorable press coverage that I can remember, Governor Patrick is threatening a veto of the state budget and its 25% sales tax hike unless the Legislature passes an ethics reform bill.

The veto threat is fine - it would be better if he meant it. But what in God's name does one have to do with the other?

Here's how the Governor explains the situation to the State House News:
"The fact that we have not been able to pass a strong ethics reform bill -- despite the clear need to restore the public's trust -- threatens all the progress we have made," Patrick said. "For the Legislature to enact a 25% increase in the sales tax without first passing a strong ethics bill goes against the pledge that the Legislative leaders and I made, and that the public expects us to keep, to deliver all three reforms before new revenue. We know what to do. The House passed a solid ethics bill. The Senate's bill contains a good new idea regarding campaign finance. Legislative leaders should quickly agree to final ethics legislation that includes the strongest provisions from the House, the Senate and my original bill -- including a gift ban and campaign finance reform. Without that, I will veto the sales tax."
The shameless hypocrisy oozing from this disingenuous rationale is striking even for Patrick. Consider:

Governor Patrick wants you to believe he is incensed at the sales tax hike because it "goes against the pledge... to deliver all three reforms before new revenue." Yet Patrick himself did everything but take hostages and threaten to off one every hour in his unsuccessful, months-long effort to force a massive gas tax increase.

He insists that the ethics reforms must include "a gift ban and campaign finance reform," while continuing to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions through his "Seventy-first Fund, which crassly exploits a loophole in the law and lets him pull in checks totaling up to 11 times the legal contribution limit.

Governor Patrick has no real problem with the sales tax hike, whether it comes before, after or along with his three reforms. He will sign the bill eventually. And he is certainly no champion of campaign finance reform. So why posture like this?

As is so often the case, this boils down to a simple, unfortunate truth: most people do not have the time or the inclination to pay much attention to their government. Patrick's threat to veto the sales tax hike unless the Legislature enacts a meaningless ethics reform bill gives him two political home runs in one. As busy voters go about their daily lives, they skim by headlines reading, "Patrick threatens veto of sales tax hike," and "Patrick pushes for ethics reform." Some percentage of voters will internalize one or both of these messages: Governor Patrick is against the sales tax increase. Governor Patrick is for cleaning up government.

Patrick will sign the sales tax hike (and the eight other tax increases embedded in the budget) into law, and he will continue to blatantly violate the spirit of the state's campaign finance laws. Many voters, however, will hang on to the subconscious mis-impressions that they get this week from Patrick's high-profile posturing.

The Governor's argument to the State House News relies on the assumption that voters are willing to trade a milquetoast ethics reform bill for a 25% hike in the state sales tax. I think I speak for many of my fellow citizens when I say I'd rather keep my money.

Friday, June 19, 2009

I've never been much good with math...

... so perhaps someone can explain this one to me:

Last year's state budget was $28.2 billion. The fiscal 2010 budget just passed by the Massachusetts State Legislature totals $27.4 billion.

According to the State House News Service, this new budget "includes nearly a billion dollars in new taxes, $1.5 billion in one-time federal stimulus funds and about $2.4 billion in spending cuts and other efforts to slow the growth of spending."

I have posted in the past about the folly of budget balancing with one-time revenues like the federal stimulus funds, so won't repeat that here. What has me puzzled this evening is that "$2.4 billion in spending cuts and other efforts to slow the growth of spending."

Ignore the weasel-worded "other efforts to slow the growth of spending," which sounds an awful lot like President Obama's "jobs created or saved" nonsense. Let's just look at math for a moment.

The difference between last year's budget and this year's is approximately -$800 million. Assume a generous inflation rate of 3%, and in present day dollars we can call last year's budget 'even-funded' at $29 billion. $27.4 billion is $1.6 billion less than $29 billion - so the fiscal 2010 budget is $1.6 billion dollars lower than this year's equivalent of a level-funded budget as compared to last year.

So how, exactly, do they get to the supposed $2.4 billion in cuts? I suspect (but do not know) that the other $800 million is accounted for by that squishy "other efforts to slow the growth of spending." $2.4 billion is a big, impressive number. It gifts heft to the claim that the legislature made the "tough choices," and it helps sell that billion dollars in new taxes (on top of the billion they levied last year, let's not forget).

I might well be missing something fundamental. If I am, can someone tell me what it is?

Legislators of the night

Why does it seem our Legislature never does anything important in daylight? Following weeks upon weeks during which neither chamber spends more than a few minutes in formal session and conference committees labor away (supposedly - but who can really know?) behind tightly sealed doors, the big-ticket items nearly always first 'see the light of day' in the dark of night.

The latest two examples are transportation reform (released near midnight on Wednesday) and the budget accord (released near midnight last night), but the practice of legislative nocturnal emission has been more rule than exception for years now.

The reasons are not difficult to identify. This is just a variant on the time-honored, non-partisan practice of holding bad news until 'after the news cycle.' In every day terms this means waiting to make an announcement until after 4pm, when the television and print reporters have already filed their stories for the next day. This tactic is most frequently deployed on Fridays.

There is something very different, however, about using a variant on this ploy where major pieces of significant legislation are concerned. On a practical level, releasing bills that often run to hundreds of pages at midnight, usually (as in the case of both the transportation bill and the budget this week) for votes the very next day, virtually guarantees that 99.9% of the public will have zero opportunity to learn anything about the legislation prior to the vote. Very few reporters will have a chance to review the bill. Those who do will not be able to get their analysis to the public in time to empower citizens to provide feedback to their elected representatives. Consequently, those reporters who are able to publish anything about the bill will necessarily rely on summaries provided by... Statehouse leadership.

Pressed for an explanation of this repeated last-minute legislating, the Democratic leaders are always armed with an excuse. In the case of this week's blockbuster bills, they cite July 1 - the latest effective date of the long-threatened Pike toll increase. They needed to get the bills to Governor Patrick by today, you see, to give him the full 10 days allocated him by the Constitution to review the bills prior to his sign or veto decision. This excuse ignores the five and a half months worth of days prior to today's artificial deadline. It also ignores the fact that the toll hikes have been pushed back multiple times already, and certainly could have been delayed another week to allow citizen review of a budget that will require them to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars in increased taxes from here on out.

This is all a variant on the attitude expressed so beautifully early this week by Senate President Terese Murray (D-Revenue before More Revenue) when she explained closed-door conference committee meetings with a citizen brush-off: "It would be like if we came and sat as you [did your work] and sat around and said, 'Why are you doing that?' or 'Why are you saying that?' "

Legislating by moonlight takes it a step further. Not only are voters unable to say "why are you doing that," we are unable even to ask "why DID you do that?" before they cast their hurried votes and it is too late to do anything about it.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Transportation Bill looking better and better

The union bosses hate it and are urging no votes. All things being equal, that's good enough for me. I am getting downright enthusiastic.

At the end of the Romney Administration a proposal was floated to eliminate the Turnpike Authority. One rationale for elimination rather than reform was that only through wholesale elimination could the outrageous union contracts that have strangled its operations be invalidated. It is perhaps a good measure of my personal cynicism toward our current legislature that I never thought to wonder if that union defenestration provision would be included in this year's transportation reform. Apparently it has been. From the Boston.com article linked above:
"It eliminates all unions at the Turnpike Authority and takes no regard for collective bargaining," said Robert F. Cullinane, head of the teamsters local union 127, which represents toll-takers. "We thought we were voting for Democrats up here."
Note well: this is not about the workers. The workers will have the opportunity to join and be represented by any number of the existing unions that are peppered throughout the state transportation workforce. This is about the union bosses who will suddenly find themselves stripped of the ability to call the shots at the Pike, an ability that they have grown to cherish and have exercised in sometimes appallingly brazen ways (see, e.g., the infamous Easter Sunday sick-out just two months ago). The workers won't lose their voice - the union bosses will lose some of their power, and about time.

The State House News has a little more detail on a letter-borne threat fired off by the head of the AFL-CIO today to the legislature:
In a letter to senators, Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Robert Haynes said language in Section 142 of the bill "abandoned" protections for Mass. Turnpike Authority workers that had been included in the House and Senate bills. "This removes the voice of the workers' and the unions' they elected to join entirely from subjects that have been collectively bargained for decades," Haynes wrote, urging senators to reject the conference report. Haynes added in his letter: "There is no voice for workers on any board in the proposed MassDOT," the name given to the new transportation super-agency created under the bill. And he closed by saying: "All votes relating to these matters may be considered Labor Votes and calculated into Labor Voting Records upon which endorsements and levels of support are determined. Thank you."
'Vote against us and we won't be there for you next year,' in other words. Individual legislators will be forgiven a collective shrug. 'What are they going to do? Endorse a Republican?'

Republicans who are understandably tempted to criticize this bill's shortcomings and oppose it on that basis ought to ponder Ronald Reagan's admonition concerning the occasional efficacy of taking half a loaf when it is offered and coming back for the rest later. This bill constitutes at least half a loaf.

"We thought we were voting for Democrats up here." Priceless.

Glad to be wrong

Yesterday I predicted that the transportation conference committee would punt on the issue of MBTA benefits by pushing that controversial issue into a study commission. Apparently they did not. I'm glad to be wrong.

I have not read the bill that came out of committee last night. It is a good bet that many of the legislators who will be asked to vote for it today have not either, and will not before casting their votes. As the Globe notes, "The extensive plan, reached after weeks of closed-door negotiating, is expected to be voted on today by the House and Senate, giving rank-and-file lawmakers only hours to review complex legislation that their leaders have labeled historic." This rush-to-vote violates a new rule just implemented by Speaker DeLeo, according to which members are supposed to have at least a day to review legislation before a vote, but never mind. Rule number one in the Massachusetts Legislature has long been: 'rules are meant to be broken.'

Anyhow, from the limited coverage available so far, it looks like this bill is a big step in the right direction.

Even if abolishing the Turnpike Authority turns out to be purely symbolic, it is useful and important symbolism. Or perhaps more accurately, it is a useful and important to eliminate an agency that has become a symbol of government waste, patronage and inefficiency. Given the redundancy that currently exists between the Pike and Mass Highway, the costly Pike union contracts and skewed salaries paid at that agency, the consolidation is likely to result in significant actual savings. In any event, good riddance.

The significant adjustments to MBTA retiree benefits will realize real savings for that cash-strapped agency. And the Legislature's refusal to accede to Governor Patrick's insistence on a 19 cent gas tax increase is encouraging, if predictable in the wake of a politically unpopular vote to raise the state sales tax.

Of course consolidation and reform on paper are worth little more than said paper. The proof will be in the implementation of these reforms. If all that happens is a change in signage and some shuffling of office space, the state will find itself still sitting at the bottom of the same hole a few years from now. Credit where credit is due, though: this is the first positive, substantive measure to come out of that building in months.

Now about those tolls...

Does this guy have a fan club?

David Bernstein logs yet another excellent piece of State House commentary in the Boston Phoenix this week, accompanied by a fun sidebar on the history of public corruption in Massachusetts. He has been writing some of the most insightful - and incisive - stuff out there lately. I just added his blog to my blogroll at left. It is well worth your attention.

Back to today's piece, which is about how under Speakers both conservative and liberal, the basic paradigm of governance on Beacon Hill has remained the same: "an insular and out-of-touch legislature is lost in its own constricted and often petty perspectives."

You should take the time to read the whole thing. Nothing in it should surprise you, but Bernstein does a great job of distilling the dysfunction and describing its inevitable effects. Here are my favorite excerpts:
As the recent pattern has been, those in the current Speaker's good graces protect the status quo; the rest plot and wait for their chance to benefit from the system. Thus, the liberals who regularly decried Finneran's autocratic, centralized, secretive leadership were later found, under DiMasi, strutting imperiously through the sty of Beacon Hill, like the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm...

...In retrospect, some say, nobody knows what DiMasi's motives might have been when acting on any number of laws or favors, because, for the most part, House members — including many progressive lawmakers from Boston and the immediate area — were willing to obey the Speaker's requests without demanding much in the way of explanations. Many of those lawmakers have since moved up in the power structure under DiMasi, and his chosen successor DeLeo. That silent obedience, critics charge, has been the great failing of the House liberals: they enabled DiMasi by accepting their roles as quiescent pawns, rubber-stamping the bills and amendments delivered from on high, and quashing any initiatives disapproved by the central office...

...Many local good-government advocates are now hoping that the stunning new allegations about DiMasi will awaken their favorite lawmakers to the need for systemic change — in the rules and in their own personal behavior. But they are not feeling optimistic. "The silence is deafening," says one Boston pol, who, like others, asked not to be identified when criticizing the local representatives. "I don't think any of them have changed their attitudes." "I don't think that any of them are saying there's a group culture problem," adds one consultant. "They get so used to the way things work, it's hard to see what needs to be changed." "What changes?" asks the pol. "They're just loyal to another Speaker."...

There is much more. Bernstein take a look at some of the small reform measures implemented by new Speaker DeLeo (like the rule requiring members to be briefed on bills the day before they are asked to cast a vote... which looks to be violated today with regard to the transportation bill released by conference committee late last night). But he is not particularly optimistic, noting the profound irony on display earlier this month as the ethics bill conference committee voted to close the public and the press out of its deliberations on a measure intended to bring more openness and transparency to government. He also discusses the troubling fact that many in the legislature have directed much more hostility toward the Governor than toward a Speaker who corrupted his office - with their overwhelming support.

Anyhow, read the piece today and keep an eye on this Bernstein fellow. It is always nice to see writing like this in a paper that gets in front of a lot of eyes that would not ordinarily be exposed to this perspective.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Two more BHD observations

Both of these are prompted by a late-Bunker Hill-day dispatch from the State House News:

First, that big transportation reform package that was promised by Speaker DeLeo to be ready for a vote, er, yesterday is still bogged down in a conference committee (that did not meet today - holiday and all). According to conferee Senator Bob Hedlund (R-Weymouth), the group is stuck on two issues: "whether to allow the state's conservation agency to oversee parkways and issues related to health care of MBTA retirees."

The first issue is strictly highway bureaucracy insider baseball. Metro Boston parkways are currently outside of the state Highway Department, overseen by the Department of Conservation and Recreation - so in other words, overseen by a whole separate group of political patronage appointments. Think of them as mini-Pikes, without the tolls. It is not surprising that the patrons who have stowed their constituents in DCR jobs are loathe to see those parkways consolidated into the Highway Department, but that is the only rational option if the bill is truly to reform the way the state deals with transportation.

The second sticking point - "issues related to health care of MBTA retirees" is less difficult to interpret. MBTA retiree benefits are amongst the richest in the state. Coincidentally, MBTA retiree benefits are strangling the MBTA. The T has some powerful unions. They won't give up the 'bennies' without a fight. Don't be surprised to read later this week or next that the conferees decided to appoint a blue ribbon study commission to take a closer look at the issue.

The second item is more encouraging. A few weeks back I speculated that perhaps in the aftermath of the third Speaker indictment in a row, some Democrats would start to question where their ruling elite are taking their party. From the SHNS:
Blue Mass Group, a collection of left-leaning, political bloggers announced Wednesday it intends to form a political action committee to “support progressive candidates of integrity for election.” In a statement posted on its web site, Blue Mass Group co-founders said they will file with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance to form the PAC. In the statement, co-founder Charley Blandy said the PAC would encourage candidates who would take aim at the status quo. “Hopefully we’ll make incumbents a little less comfortable and a little more responsive,” he said. A spokesman for OCPF said papers to form a PAC had not been filed yet.
Here's BMG's informal announcement. Good for them. That last bit above about making incumbents "a little less comfortable and a little more responsive" is particularly encouraging, if they follow up on the sentiment. I rarely agree with much that I read over at BMG, but they are thoughtful folks who do not hesitate to criticize their own. Let's hope this new PAC of theirs really does put some dollars up against a few of the fossilized professional office-holders currently clinging to their posts on Beacon Hill.

On a closely related and darkly humorous note, I received an email earlier this week informing me that "Speaker DeLeo" has "invited" me to the "kickoff of the Committee for a Democratic House PAC." Isn't that a hoot? The Committee for a Democratic House. In Massachusetts. One might as well donate to "the Committee for Regular Tides," or "the Committee for Green Grass." Still, all across the Commonwealth lobbyists, state contractors and many others received the same "invitation" and will feel compelled to shovel dollars into that gaping maw, lest they lose favor with the Democratic Machine. BMG's new PAC will have a hard time countering that.

Now see, I've gone and typed myself right out of my brief burst of optimism...

Bunker Hill Day miscellany

In honor of Bunker Hill Day, which I am celebrating by... working, like most of the rest of the world, I offer the following hodgepodge of miscellaneous observations:

He learned from the best. In a special election to replace indicted ex-Speaker Sal DiMasi, 9.59 percent of his former constituents got themselves out to vote and overwhelmingly elected one of Sal's former aides. Of course they did. This is Massachusetts, after all. And hey, maybe this Michlewitz kid is a good egg and managed somehow to remain unsullied by the rank corruption that apparently marked his former boss's tenure. It is a troubling sign, however, that he chose to cite "his work as DiMasi's aide" as key to his victory. He'd better stay out of the condo market for a while.

Lip service. Globe article today: State leaders vow Buker Hill will be a workday. Vow, sure. Vote? Not so much. I find myself in rare total agreement with a Globe editorial, reason enough for celebration.



This is a good idea. Being a cynic, however, I note how easy and how common it has been in the past for the Legislature to vote to cancel what were supposed to be "automatic" transfers into the state's rainy day fund, and the fact that said fund was spent down to pay for spending increases even before the current downturn began.

What's in a name? The Herald notes the sudden appearance of a rash of construction signs bearing Governor Patrick's name, and sees them as an, er, sign of his reelection ramp-up. I continue to think Patrick is going to bow out next year, and note that in the photo accompanying the Herald article, there is another name sitting right next to Patrick's. Think about this: when is the last time you saw the Lt. Governor's name on state signage, anywhere? The Herald also notes that Patrick's vanity tagging is a reversal of Romney policy, which banned the practice as a waste of money. That strikes me as a pretty good measure of a politician's true priorities; with Romney at one extreme, properly refusing to spend taxpayer dollars on gratuitous self aggrandizement, and Boston Mayor Menino (who has his name emblazoned on everything but the City Hall urinals) at the other. Patrick and Murray sit somewhere in the middle - though it takes particular chutzpah to reinstate such a purely wasteful practice in the midst of a deep recession.