Is this the Massachusetts legislature or an eighth-grade lunch room. Senate President Terry “Ka Ching” Murray to Joan Vennochi:
“The governor has decided he doesn’t like us.”
Massachusetts Liberal lays it out in a devastating commentary, “Mommy, Deval hit me!”
I didn’t think it was possible for Murray to look any more ridiculous after she claimed the “reform before revenue” slogan then revealed the “reform” she had in mind was to reinforce the hackocracy, and she wanted “revenue” no matter what — but I am proved wrong.
Who needs The Onion when we have the current leadership of the Massachusetts legislature. Time for a change.
Please share widely!
mjonesmel says
We can all read Joan Vennochi’s column and draw our own conclusions, but I think her point was that there has been a failure of leadership all around, and that includes Deval Patrick:
<
p>Yes, the Senate’s games around ethics reform are more than obnoxious, but the fact is that the Legislature and the Legislative leadership have taken a political risk to raise revenues, a step that benefits the most needy in the Commonwealth. The risk is evident in Patrick’s political grandstanding, playing off “Beacon Hill insiders” and threatening to veto revenue increases.
stomv says
<
p>by using a regressive tax that punishes consumption at precisely the time when a little consumption will go a long way with this economy. They didn’t work toward a “flatter” tax like raising the income tax, and they didn’t work toward a pigovian tax like raising the gas tax to eliminate tolls and save the T.
<
p>No, they wimped out, big time.
johnmurphylaw says
“Failure of leadership all around”? Patrick’s moves are just “political grandstanding”? I know I am fast becoming the resident Patrick apologist, but can’t you people see that you’re not going to get the Massachusetts Legislature to change its stripes by hosting tea and crumpets at noon?
<
p>So he breaks a few eggs. Offends a few big egos. Doesn’t play by the “rules”. We are long past playing nice.
<
p>You state that the “Legislative leadership have taken a political risk to raise revenues”. Yeah, so what? We should back off them? In times of crisis I expect the legislative leadership to exhibit LEADERSHIP, not calculated and minimal political risk taking while throwing diversionary smoke bombs at the Governor. Deval Patrick has had the balls to call out the legislature. He’s going to keep doing it. Despite all the “push back” that the media has been focusing on, I think it’s working.
petr says
<
p>And, in doing so, they’ve completely eschewed the Governor, who publicly stated he’d be willing to take a riskier step and reform the transportation department… and to take the politically RISKIER step of raising the gas tax.
<
p>You can’t act like the lege is the only one ready to take a risk… and, in fact, the lege is the one taking the LEAST risk, here…
<
p>
sabutai says
And here I was thinking that this was going to be a post of substance, or at least the personal attack du jour of the most prominent woman in Massachusetts politics (she failed pasting!!).
<
p>It turns out that all this is taking a line of a Joan Vennochi editorial out of context, an editorial that itself starts by taking another of Murray’s quotes out of context. this line of attack does nothing to make the state government a working concern, but it sure is a piece of Deval’s political stage-setting for next year.
<
p>Is this really the best you got?
bob-neer says
legislation the Speaker has produced in the recent days.
<
p>You have claimed in previous posts that you’re all for realism and hardball politics.
<
p>Let’s see you make a substantive case for Senator Murray’s leadership in the past few weeks.
<
p>mjonesmel thinks that the fact that she managed to get a tax increase is worthy of praise. I think that’s misguided — revenue without reform is just throwing dollars into a dysfunctional system — but I concede it is an argument.
<
p>BTW, I didn’t know she failed pasting.
sabutai says
You seem defensive about sexism, something that I never mentioned.
<
p>
<
p>Senator Murray got what she wanted, Governor Patrick did not. In “realism and hardball politics”, that is prima facie evidence of Murray’s superior leadership. That is what realpolitik is all about, Bob.
petr says
<
p>It looks, from this angle, that the only thing Senator Murray really wanted to was to make sure Governor Patrick got nothing. Sometimes realpolitik is indistinguishable from kindergarten pique…
johnmurphylaw says
What a clever stage setter he is. And Bob is just his hapless tool. Is it possible that his “stage setting” might have a more immediate goal? Like lighting a fire under the legislative posterior?
sabutai says
More defensiveness. As I said, “this line of attack does nothing to make the state government a working concern” which is my immediate concern. Responding to something — when taken out of context twice removed — interpreted as “nyahh nyahh nyahh” with “nyahh nyahh rubber/glue/sticks to you” isn’t going to walk anyone down from the ledge.
<
p>I’ve responded at length to questions about signs that Deval is truly “lighting a fire under the legislative posterior” and so will direct you here, here, here or here.
johnmurphylaw says
You didn’t answer my question. Direct that.
sabutai says
I gave you four places to find an answer to your question, but since you chose not to bother, I will spell it out for you as simply as I can:
<
p>”is it possible that his “stage setting” might have a more immediate goal? Like lighting a fire under the legislative posterior?”
<
p>As I’ve repeatedly said, it should take more than a mini-tour and web videos to throw a scare into legislators who’ve seen Wel, Celucci, Swift, and Romney came and go — pretty ineffective, all. So why would they be scared when Deval does the same thing these guys did?
johnmurphylaw says
I give up. I think you are stuck. I read your posts after you condescendedly offered them, but apparently you didn’t read mine. Brian, you’re obviously a political veteran, a connected part of the system. Perhaps you have a predisposition for “business as usual”. Maybe your strong opinions of the “proper” way to do things inhibit your ability to consider alternatives. I don’t know how you can deny that Deval’s situation and approach is markedly different from governors past. Maybe you’re right, and his efforts will fail miserably. But I’ve seen your horses (the intractable legislative leadership), and I sure don’t want to bet on THEM.
<
p>I have another question, but I don’t think I’ll be bothering to check back for a direct answer from you. What makes you think that wining and dining the incoming legislators (one of your perceived missed opportunities by the Gov) would have resulted in more votes for the Governor’s agenda? Don’t you think freshman legislators were all recipients of advice to the effect of: “Just keep your nose clean kid, and follow the leadership. Governors come and Governors go, but we got a good thing going here. Stay in line.” Pretty sound advice, wouldn’t you say, given the experience of the last few decades? So you and Judy Meredith some of the other long suffering cognoscenti can spare me your insider tales of what governors have done in the past (your above comparison of Deval’s tactics to past GOP efforts is most inapt). That’s why we’re still stuck at Dysfunction Junction. It’s a brand new game now. I’m betting on it. Save your tactical advice for the Cahill campaign.
<
p>And now I’m going to spell it out for YOU as simply as I can. Wake up and smell the coffee.
sabutai says
The correct answer was “yes,” otherwise it’s not a direct answer. Umm….okay….
<
p>In all honesty, you’re welcome to just deny and refuse my comparisons but that doesn’t make it so. What could Deval have done? Met with freshman legislators more than once in their first three months. Commit to giving them the political support they need to make changes — instead of visits to random Boston-area towns, he could have gone to the districts of legislators who voted with him. Commit to remaking the party…he’s already watched special and regular elections from the sidelines.
<
p>I don’t compare him to all GOP governors — Weld did more to remake the Lege the way he wanted it, and Romney at least tried two years into his tenure, something Deval did not.
<
p>I’m sure you’ll dismiss my answers for not agreeing with you, and use big words to make it sound impressive. You’re also welcome to keep pretending I’m bucking for Cahill, when I’ve said repeatedly I still prefer Deval over Cahill.
<
p>While I am sure confusion resulting from the pitfalls of Internet confusion doesn’t help our dialogue, your sneering personal attacks don’t really give me optimism that this standoff is due for an immediate end.
judy-meredith says
myself. Not as good as you at long suffering. Even gladly.
bob-neer says
In MHO đŸ™‚
johnmurphylaw says
One person is a cognoscente.
arnold-t says
If you want to understand Beacon Hill politics, and specifically Therese Murray, just look at the story from the 2006 Health Care Reform bill signing.
<
p>At the made for TV event at Faneuil Hall, Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Murray saw a print out of the seating chart of the stage. When she saw that other legislators had better seats than her, she grabbed the print out, ripped it up, threw it in the air and caused a major scene in front of the Romney staff aides.
<
p>A seating chart!
<
p>People on the health care finance committees sat closer to the middle, than her, and she takes that as a personal insult.
<
p>She is offended that the Governor expresses an opinion and then stands up for himself. Crazy, I know.
<
p>Also the “Reform before Revenue” saying was ok when she says it, but when the Governor wants to enforce it, she calls him irrelevant.
<
p>So sad.
kirth says
in Vennochi’s column:
If she really did choose ‘appropriation of’ over ‘agreement with’ makes it look like she thinks it’s all about her. Maybe Patrick was hoping if he supported her priorities, she’d support his side and help persuade DeLeo.
yellow-dog says
that Patrick has failed to provide leadership; however, he has at least tried.
<
p>It was he who produced unpleasant, but honest budget that could have sparked some conversation about the Commonwealth’s structural deficit and its possible remedies. Instead, what should have provided a dialogue was laughed at and ignored by the legislature which put out budgets intended to terrify and provide cover for whatever revenue option.
<
p>Leadership requires management skills, but it also requires a bit of imagination and foresight. Given the political realities of Massachusetts, it’s perhaps to much to ask from Tough Talkin’ Terry and her counterparts and predecessors who got where they are through the exercise of power and politics, not ideas.
<
p>
ryepower12 says
murray stepping down as senate president
christopher says
I don’t have a strong opinion on this one, but since you suggest I was just curious as to whether you have a preference.
ryepower12 says
willing to recognize we need to work together instead of trying to tear each other apart. Anyone who’s beyond childish pettiness. Someone who has a strong world view and who’s world review impacts their policy preferences as a whole – as opposed to “ka-ching” policies that show at best a lack of any political courage, at worst the selling out of this state to a well-oiled lobbyist industry.
<
p>I’ve named specifics in previous, related threads in the past. I like McGee. I like Senator Tucker. I like a lot of other people. In my wildest dreams, we’d see someone like Sonia or Jamie rise up fast. But I don’t need a progressive hero – I’d settle for someone who was looking out for the best interest of the state, instead of their own egos.
christopher says
…I’ll take my own Senator, Sue Tucker!
cater68 says
Deval is looking perfectly pathetic. The Legislature has stepped up in an attempt to fill the funding gap. Yes, their solution may be imperfect, but at least they’re doing something. Deval’s shooting populist spitballs from the cheap seats. What an unmitigated embarassment. Full disclosure: I was a Gabrielli delegate.
mjonesmel says
<
p>This the point I was trying to make in my comment about the Legislature increasing revenues through the sales tax and Patrick then grandstanding through his veto threat.
stomv says
* A gas tax which would eliminate the tolls, fund the T, and recognize that we as a society must use many tools to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and reduce our carbon emissions
* A local options meals tax which would allow cities and towns the option of raising a little extra revenue so that they’re not so reliant on the property tax, and then use some of it to supplement the revenue of towns without that density of restaurants
* Transportation organization reform so that the transit agencies are more nimble, more qualified, and more responsive
* An expanded bottle bill which would raise revenue for the state, reduce litter, and reduce the expenses cities and towns have for local recycling requirements
<
p>Of those four comprehensive, well thought out, appropriate spitballs, which ones are populist? The first one sure isn’t. The second one likely isn’t as it only applies to a small number of communities. The fourth isn’t either — pigovians are never popular if they impact more than a handful of people (eg smokers).
<
p>Full disclosure: if you’re going to call proposals populist spitballs, please enumerate which ones you refer.
gonzod says
<
p>2. In our political system, the Governor puts his budget together in December, the House in March/April, the Senate in April/May. In economic downturns, what the Governor does in December can be completely irrelevant by the time the House and Senate put out their budget and new revenue estimates are available; under these circumstances comparing the Governor’s budget to the legislative budgets is completely ludicrous.
<
p>3. The natural institutional tensions of our system of checks and balances are usually most truly tested in bad economic times. Those tensions can provide more heat than light on the public debate over the choices we face to solve these difficult problems. And the press, in its most pitiful state ever, promotes red herrings that have nothing to do with the very real consequences of the slashing cuts we face in health care, education, and services to the poor and disabled.
<
p>4. No one on these pages (including our hosts) are doing any favors by buying into the rhetoric forthcoming from any of the principals and the red herrings promoted by the press. These pages would be more useful if there were some coherent discussion of the bad choices we face, and real analysis of the practicalities, both substantive and political, of the choices, and some framework for helping progressive leaders communicate this information to real people who could actually care less about whether the Senate President likes the Governor and vice versa.
<
p>How about this?
<
p>We don’t appear to have an income tax solution on the table to deal with our current crisis. The gas tax and the sales tax are not optimal solutions – many outside Rt.128/495 believe they get little or no benefit from transportation spending, the sales tax can have regressive tendencies. Instead of repeating the partisan debates between the governor and legislature on these pages, why don’t we have each bluemasser go out and talk to 10 friends and neighbors who actually have real lives, present them with the choices of cuts amid the shortfall of billions in revenues, point out that “reform before revenue” is great rhetoric, no matter what side you favor on the substance, but is no solution to the hemorrhaging of revenues and potential cuts, and ask them which of the bad choices is most practical?
david says
Like this?
<
p>Seriously, what do you want from us? As bloggers go, I’d say we’re weighted pretty far toward the substantive end of the scale. But it can’t be policy wonkery all the time, now can it? All wonk and no play makes Bob, Charley & David dull boys. I like your idea about going out and talking to people offline, but by definition that’s not blogging, is it?
<
p>As for “buying into the rhetoric,” words matter. I’m glad the Gov is trying to ratchet up the pressure on the legislature. And, yeah, Murray and DeLeo have the votes to ram through pretty much whatever they want, so the Gov is using the bully pulpit. That’s politics.
<
p>And this:
<
p>
<
p>is a mistake, perhaps an inadvertent one. The debate between the Gov and the lege is not “partisan.”
judy-meredith says
I’d wager that 8 out of 10 people interviewed this way already know that declining state revenues are threatening their local services,their property tax and even their fishing fees. They just want a sensible solution and roll their eyes at the headlines that magnify and distort the debate rhetoric into finger pointing and name calling in the mainstream and alternative media, including this site.
<
p>Besides I haven[t given up on trying to figure out how to win an increase in the income tax during this calendar year.
<
p>Interested?
jhg says
I’d have more respect for the Gov’s position if it seemed like he was working to actually get his proposals passed, instead of making political points.
<
p>At some point in the process, it looks like he gave up on working with the legislature for some pragmatic compromise and decided to go over their heads and stake out a public position.
<
p>The legislature then took institutional offense and decided to do their own thing. In the end, they seem to be stronger than the Gov.
<
p>The Gov’s position makes him look good to progressives, and maybe to independents, but doesn’t get anything done. We can complain about the legislature forever, but nothing can get passed without them, and they’ll always be there.
<
p>Of course, the same complaints can be made about the legislative leaders as well.