DiMasi wants experience

DiMasi sounds like he's declaring victory over the people of Massachusetts (6.00 / 1)

Kind of like Romney.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:13:55 AM CST

Nice. (0.00 / 0)

I'm quoting you in the main post.

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:17:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Next Speaker (6.00 / 2)

Can we have a speaker next time who does not try to become Governor without running for the position?

---

by: Historian @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:32:57 AM CST

Consensus math (0.00 / 0)

A couple of things, first, taxes/revenues are forecast (consensus) to increase 2.9% for fiscal 2007, so a budget much in excess of 2.9% necessarily seeks money elsewhere.  Obvious, right?

In light of recent and impending upending in the neverending mortgage problem, DiMasi ought to be seriously questioning the 2.9% forecast and rightly sees nothing good will come of raising taxes during a recession.

The Patrick 'close-the-loophole' cliche '07 failed miserably.  Whether you believe the loophole thing is just or unjust, the business community believes it to be too-clever-by-half packageing of a tax increase.

Farnkoff has said and I disagree, but welcome the continued debate, that Corporations pay less tax than is equitable. Yet, Taxpayer Foundation says just the opposite, and the Farnkoff most favorable sources show a Massachusetts that is, at best, average in its taxation of business.  DiMasi might well believe business already pays its fair share--he has support from some reputable institutions.

Same sex marriage.  Geez...get over it.  It was a side show. Christ I'd have voted for it or against it, whatever, just to get the issue off the table.  It's the money/economy/taxes stupid.  It's always about the money.  Anything else is chit-chat.

"The Legislature did a great job last year".  What a bloviating boob.

DiMasi has successfully painted Patrick as the little kid wanting a bigger allowance: "But dad, you can get a raise from the Corporations; Dad, how about casinos....

---

by: gary @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:10:36 AM CST

A Side Show? (0.00 / 0)

I agree it's time for people to "get over it," but it wasn't a  side show. Thankfully, it seems, you weren't effected by the debate. But for the 5-10% of this state who are gay, bisexual and even transgender, it did matter. And it mattered to their friends and family, too. It wasn't chit chat to us... it was f undamental to our lives... bloviating boob, indeed.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:24:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Importance (3.00 / 1)

I'm sure it was important to you, fundamental even.  Fundamental to 10000; a sideshow to 6 million. (i.e. Sideshow as in by contrast to the Center Ring.

The Center Ring is always about the money.

---

by: gary @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:46:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You know what (6.00 / 1)

This is exactly the type of thing so many people have left BMG over. I could call you homophobic, an asshole, a jerk and go into nasty, personal terms... and risk at least a severe talking to from the editors. Now, I've never used personal insults in that way, so I've never had to engage in that kind of conversation... but I can see why I get so many complaints from fellow commenters via email on BMG, including those who choose to no longer participate. Meanwhile, you've just insulted not only me, but 5-10% of this state's entire population, as well as their friends, relatives and coworkers in a way far worse than any personal insult.

There's too many people like who, who are far more offensive than anyone who would defend themselves by issuing a personal attack against you. Your offhand comments are not only homophobic, but entirely incorrect. 5-10% of this state's population is nearly a half million and up. That's a helluva lot of people. Then add in their friends, family, cousins and coworkers - who all cared. It wasn't a sideshow to any of us. Hell, I was just talking to David Yas on my podcast - a columnist for Lawyer's Weekly - who has been a crusader on this topic and thinks the Goodridge decision is the most important legal decision to come down in Massachusetts in decades. I'll paraphrase: 'it wasn't an accident that the SJC issued the decision on the anniversary of Brown v. the Board of Education.' It was that important. By the bye, David Yas is straight.

It was only a sideshow to you because you belong in the catagory of people who I truly wish I never had to engage in. I wish I could expand beyond that point, but then I'd be getting into those personal attacks that the editors so wish us to avoid.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:58:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Fine (0.00 / 0)

For a moment in time, ney for time eternal, the energies, resources and wisdom of all our elected officials and the judiciary caused and causes the Gay Marriage debate and outcome to be the center ring, utmost importance, and all else to be merely reflections by comparison.  

Tax policy, education, medicaid, universal health, election reform, welfare, banking and insurance policy...--each policy of which affect each one of us pale in comparison to the Marriage decision of 2007.  I've erred. My mistake. You're right.

---

by: gary @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:20:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hyberbolic, much? (0.00 / 0)

Marriage equality is neither the end, nor the beginning. Of course, its importance varies by person. To some people, it literally is one of the most important expansions in civil rights during their lifetime. That's not to say it's more important than the issues of health care, election reform or educational policy -- my one and only point was that marriage equality, and gay rights in general, is damn important and worth this state's efforts.

You said it was a side show. It's not. That's all there is to it - nothing more and nothing less.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 15:32:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ever visit the circus (3.00 / 1)

Three rings: center ring and two side shows.

In that which is government, there are items of importance and there are side shows.  For the important items, follow the money.  The others are side shows.  YMMV.

---

by: gary @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 15:36:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Incorrect (0.00 / 0)

Side shows are not in any of the three rings of a circus, they are outside the big top tent.  

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 17:08:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

vomit... (0.00 / 0)

A couple of things, first, taxes/revenues are forecast (consensus) to increase 2.9% for fiscal 2007, so a budget much in excess of 2.9% necessarily seeks money elsewhere.  Obvious, right?

No.  Not so obvious at all... why do you think so?

I never drank the 'balanced budgets all the time' kool-aid. I can see where running a budget deficit might be sound economic policy. In fact, that's more obvious to me than the canard math you proffer.

The Patrick 'close-the-loophole' cliche '07 failed miserably.  Whether you believe the loophole thing is just or unjust, the business community believes it to be too-clever-by-half packageing of a tax increase.

The only coherence emerging from this random collection of (other peoples) synaptic mis-firings is a tacit admission that the legislature sits in a comfortable and deep pocket...

Same sex marriage.  Geez...get over it.  It was a side show. Christ I'd have voted for it or against it, whatever, just to get the issue off the table.  It's the money/economy/taxes stupid.  It's always about the money.  Anything else is chit-chat.

Translation:  "The issue is beneath me. As are you. Why do you not genuflect?"

DiMasi has successfully painted Patrick as the little kid wanting a bigger allowance: "But dad, you can get a raise from the Corporations; Dad, how about casinos....

I think the oxygen is running out on that planet you're on...

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:58:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Because (0.00 / 0)

No.  Not so obvious at all... why do you think so?

I never drank the 'balanced budgets all the time' kool-aid. I can see where running a budget deficit might be sound economic policy. In fact, that's more obvious to me than the canard math you proffer.

Because, by law, the State must operate with a balanced budget.  You may see where running a budget deficit is sound, and perhaps it is, but it's  illegal.

Translation:  "The issue is beneath me. As are you. Why do you not genuflect?"

Not beneath me, just unimportant to me, and most residents, IMHO.  Must it be otherwise?  

I think the oxygen is running out on that planet you're on...

Yeah, yeah.  Let's get the ad hominem attacks out of the way.

---

by: gary @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:24:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

still vomit. (0.00 / 0)

Because, by law, the State must operate with a balanced budget.  You may see where running a budget deficit is sound, and perhaps it is, but it's  illegal.

And an exceedingly stupid law it is.  

   I think the oxygen is running out on that planet you're on...

Yeah, yeah.  Let's get the ad hominem attacks out of the way.

Let's review Ad Hominem shall we? It's not ad hominem if I think your arguments are informed by a lack of oxygen.  It would be ad hominen if I made the contention that you refused to draw breath because you liked the dizzy feeling you get.  


---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ok (0.00 / 0)

We should deficit spend, but first let's amend the State's Constitution, because it's stupid for the Constitution to compel the state to spend only what it has.  Interesting position.  Tell me more.

---

by: gary @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 13:01:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

MGL ch 29 section 6E. (0.00 / 0)

We should deficit spend, but first let's amend the State's Constitution, because it's stupid for the Constitution to compel the state to spend only what it has.  Interesting position.  Tell me more.

I couldn't tell you a thing about that position, however interesting.  You've mistaken me for some-one who's advocating that position.  

There is nothing about 'balanced' budgets in that mangled, trussed up and antiquated heap of  amendments and annulation to which you refer.  Massachusetts General Law, however, does make mention of just such a thing in the above listed chapters: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws... So while required by general law, it is not mandated by the constitution.  As a stupid law, it ought to be challenged.

Tell me more.

Wow. You're a cheap date.  I wanna go a couple more rounds of your coy mis-representations and inter-textual preenings before I make a man outta you.

Then we can snuggle.

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 13:57:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Truths (0.00 / 0)

I'm a cheap date, but you're mistaken on the balance of your post.  To be clear, if you're advocating for something less than a balanced State budget, it'll take the repeal of your cited statute, and, and amendment to the Constitution.

Chapter 29 Section 6E is a statute requiring a balanced budget.  If, a statute were passed that negated the need for a balanced budget, said statute would be unconstititional, because, the effect of the statute would be to negate Article LXIII, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Here's a good discussion of the 'balanced budget' States and whether the requirement is Constitutional or Statutory, or in the case of Massachusett, both.

In particular, see Table 1.
 

---

by: gary @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 15:13:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If I recall correctly... (0.00 / 0)

...while state law requires that the state have a balanced budget, it doe not preclude the state government from "bonding the operating deficit" and paying over time.  That's that's more than a bit of a slight of hand, but it's what Dukakis was reported to have done in the late 1980s.

BTW, as far as I can tell, trying to balance the state government budget by reducing state spending more likely than not will put pressre on cities and towns to increase taxes at that level.

---

by: raj @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 17:49:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hopefully (5.00 / 1)

This will teach the Governor that if he wants to succeed, he either has to build the coalitions or really take on Beacon Hill - Thunder Dome style. It's probably too late to build coalitions to overcome DiMasi's grasp... so he's going to have to go to the mattresses.

The problem now, of course, is that he's alienated so many members of his army between trying to cut corporate taxes and build three casinos that it's going to be a much more difficult process. If he shelved the casinos for now and decided to prioritize the Municipal Partnership Act, he could just rev up his peeps and get a home field advantage for this fight.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:20:20 AM CST

agree... disagree.. (5.00 / 1)

This will teach the Governor that if he wants to succeed, he either has to build the coalitions or really take on Beacon Hill - Thunder Dome style. It's probably too late to build coalitions to overcome DiMasi's grasp... so he's going to have to go to the mattresses.

Agree

I think the legislature, and in particular DiMasi, have brought this on themselves.  DiMasi is beginning to strike me as rather arrogant and fundamentally disrespectful.  He seems misled, as well, about his role in the state.  

The problem now, of course, is that he's alienated so many members of his army between trying to cut corporate taxes and build three casinos that it's going to be a much more difficult process.

Disagree.

I don't know as he's alienated all that many people.  I don't think 'displeasure' is synonymous with 'alienation'.   Romney, for instance, alienated me right off the bat with a too too clever jujitsu on the truth, a creepily aggressive ambition and the underlying aversion to risk. Not only do I disagree with his policies, but I disagree with his methods and processes. In total, he is alien to me and to my experiences. Same with the Bush/Cheney hydra. That's alienation: I simply can't imagine how they live with themselves and/or sleep at night. Patrick, on the other hand, hasn't done anything either underhanded or blatantly disrespectful of my vote.  I don't agree with him (on casinos), but I can see the process and the methods  by which he arrived at this policy and find it altogether aboveboard. In addition, I can see that what any reasonable person, under similar circumstances, might do in the same situation is not that different. In short, I remain with a distinct affinity.

If he shelved the casinos for now and decided to prioritize the Municipal Partnership Act, he could just rev up his peeps and get a home field advantage for this fight.

Disagree

I don't think he can win with legislation. This battle isn't over until either DiMasi and/or Patrick are gone. It's that simple and no amount of legislative wins/losses will make a difference.  In fact, the battle isn't about winning legislation: it's about getting the legislation a fair hearing on its merits.  I certainly don't think that happened with respect to the corporate loopholes and the life sciences initiative..

I think that, of the two, DiMasi has more pressure on him. Patrick is acting in his constitutional capacity as Governor (which is the political equivalent of 'home field advantage').  DiMasi is assuming extra-institutional roles for which his office and his election were not suited nor intended: plus, he's acting like a pissant while doing this.

The legislature needs to be put in it's place: a branch of state government. What's amazing (to me, at least) is that the position of the legislature is a very important one. It's a valuable and valued component of the state and should be treated like this.  But even DiMasi, and his predecessors, treat it like a subordinate step-child: by constantly over-reaching their roles for more influence and/or control, they're slighting the considerable influence and control they should normally have...  Now, anybody who's read some of my previous posts know that I place the blame for this situation squarely on the vacuum that is Bill Weld et al and Willard Romney, but they are the context by which DiMasi and Patrick are presented with decisions. At some point they have to shed the failure that was Bill Weld et al... Particularly DiMasi.  

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:37:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A few points... (0.00 / 0)

While casinos and cutting corporate taxes may have not alienated you, I can think of many people who are so severely disappointed by the Governor's recent decisions that they would be a lot less likely to answer his figurative call. That's what I meant by alienating...

Also, I don't think DiMasi is going beyond his constitutional powers. Speakers have often been the major source of power throughout American history. It's only recent that the executive branches have been the more powerful. While I don't support DiMasi's actions - and would certainly agree that he's an arse - I don't think he's legally going beyond his powers.

Finally, I think DiMasi can be defeated on many of these proposals if the Governor is successful using the bully pulpit. Hundreds of people knocking on DiMasi's doors has to make a difference. If Patrick were willing to really go out and take on DiMasi in a public way, he could gain support. He could also go further than the Bully Pulpit and come to the decision that until the House passes some of his revenue options, he'll effectively shut government down - not signing any bills or budgets. Governors often win that fight, especially when its just.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 15:42:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Governors win (0.00 / 0)

Ryan, I'd love to believe that DiMasi can be moved on some of these things (not casinos) ... but I really don't know how. The folks who I've heard from say DiMasi's power is such that he basically gets whatever he wants in the House. And certainly he's in no danger of losing his seat, or the Speakership as long as he wants it.

So I've pushed the notion that Patrick should get out and leverage his personality to get what he wants. But I ask both of us: Where's the lever of power with DiMasi? What's his political weakness? What am I missing?

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 19:50:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The lever of power is the people... (0.00 / 0)

Orders of magnitude more people voted for Deval Patrick than they did for Sal DiMasi. If those same people voted for Patrick's candidates in the next round of Democratic primaries, it would be Patrick's legislature. Even a few object lessons would totally change the dynamic.

I think a lot of people in Massachusetts are like me. Not terribly enamored of their local representatives and senators, but letting them stick around because there aren't credible alternatives. If there were, things would change. And Deval Patrick, as a Democratic governor and de facto head of the state Democratic party is uniquely positioned to make that change.

And, truthfully, the way things are going, Patrick is going to have to run against the legislature if he wants to be re-elected. Patrick ran against the "Big Dig culture" to get elected and as time has passed it has become clearer and clearer that Sal DiMasi is its embodiment. If that is going to be the message in 2010, then it is a good idea to take it for a test drive in 2008.

---

by: ravi_n @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 20:04:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Public Humiliation (0.00 / 0)

For the folks in this state who even know DiMasi's name, they may not be exactly thrilled by him (to put it kindly). The Governor could make that 10,000x worse if he wanted. DiMasi's already gone and trashed Deval's name, Patrick ought not to be afraid of fighting fire with fire. Make DiMasi look bad enough and some House members will be willing to vote against the speaker on at least a few, key issues. We may not get everything we want, but compromises are unfortunately what government is often about.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:48:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

DiMasi's political base rests (0.00 / 0)

with 141 Democratic Members of the House. Don't forget that Speakers and Senate Presidents have to get elected a second time -- to their leadership posts. Anyone who thinks these votes are locked up because of past favors, appointments or room assignments should remember the oldest political comeback in the world. "What have you done for me lately?"

Every day is the day before election day for a Legislative Leader who wishes to keep the support of his or her own Members. And every day is an opportunity to demonstrate one's ability to lead the consensus building process in the body, which I am defining here as exercising real power by making daily decisions that either move forward or stop a proposed policy change. Excerpted in part from Real Clout.    

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 15:14:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

quibble... (0.00 / 0)

*[new]  A few points...  (0.00 / 0)

While casinos and cutting corporate taxes may have not alienated you, I can think of many people who are so severely disappointed by the Governor's recent decisions that they would be a lot less likely to answer his figurative call. That's what I meant by alienating...

Then, I submit, you ought to use a word that expresses what you mean.

I suppose it seems like a quibble, but 'alienation' isn't a choice.  'Alienated' voters are those who don't recognize the call to begin with... Alienation, to put it bluntly, means living outside your frame of reference: an in-ability to grasp the context in which decisions and calls are made.  You're really talking, merely, about disappointment. Why is this important?  Because you're saying things that you later have to explain and amend.  Why don't you just pick the right word the first time?

Also, I don't think DiMasi is going beyond his constitutional powers. Speakers have often been the major source of power throughout American history. It's only recent that the executive branches have been the more powerful. While I don't support DiMasi's actions - and would certainly agree that he's an arse - I don't think he's legally going beyond his powers.

I disagree, as I've said, and furthermore I think you're being a little naive:  this imbalance in the speakership (in the lege as whole, in fact) is the entire problem. DiMasi just inherited the situation, he didn't create it.   If DiMasi is replaced by someone who'll act the same way, what have we gained? Nothing.  DiMasi is speaking and acting like HE's the executive! That's an extra-constitutional role for the Speaker of the House in the legislature.

DiMasi has to go and the person who replaces him ought to respect both the office of Speaker and the that of the Governor by doing the one and letting Patrick do the other.

Finally, I think DiMasi can be defeated on many of these proposals if the Governor is successful using the bully pulpit. Hundreds of people knocking on DiMasi's doors has to make a difference. If Patrick were willing to really go out and take on DiMasi in a public way, he could gain support. He could also go further than the Bully Pulpit and come to the decision that until the House passes some of his revenue options, he'll effectively shut government down - not signing any bills or budgets. Governors often win that fight, especially when its just.

Again, we can't define success as 'wins in the legislature'.  Success, however boring it may sound, is merely defined as a fair hearing for the Governors proposals.  'Cause when that happens, we all win.  

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:05:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My Vocabulary is Correct... (0.00 / 0)

Take your pick of definitions:

Alienate

# To cause to become unfriendly or hostile; estrange: alienate a friend; alienate potential supporters by taking extreme positions. See Synonyms at estrange.

# To cause to become withdrawn or unresponsive; isolate or dissociate emotionally: The numbing labor tended to alienate workers.

I would submit that "disappointment" can lead to alienation, when people who are disappointed are disappointed to the extent where they will no longer support a candidate they once did. Hence, alienation. The definitions above support my conclusion.

DiMasi is speaking and acting like HE's the executive!

But they're coequal branches. Deval could just veto everything he had a minor disagreement with, Senator Murray could be pulling many of the same stunts that DiMasi is pulling. The only reason why DiMasi has been particularly powerful is because he's a) vocal and b) clearly thinks he has a large enough base of support that he can get his way. Again, there's nothing he's doing that's unconstitutional. It's only unfortunate that we, as a people, don't run more primary races against incumbants - because that's truly the only way to constitutionally keep people like DiMasi in check.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 14:46:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 0)

DiMasi is speaking and acting like HE's the executive!

But they're coequal branches.

No, 'they' are not.

Deval Patrick is the executive. He is 'co-equal' with the ENTIRE legislature... of which DiMasi is ONLY one member.

Deval could just veto everything he had a minor disagreement with, Senator Murray could be pulling many of the same stunts that DiMasi is pulling. The only reason why DiMasi has been particularly powerful is because he's a) vocal and b) clearly thinks he has a large enough base of support that he can get his way. Again, there's nothing he's doing that's unconstitutional.

The only reason DiMasi has been particularly powerful (and, please, pay attention, we've gone over this before) is because of the stunning weakness (nay, absence) of the past (Republican) Governors: They all checked out very very very shortly after being elected. Past Speakers and past Senate Presidents have filled that vacuum with their own sense of entitlement: which systemic imbalance DiMasi has inherited and is having fun with now.    This is not 'business as usual' with a particularly strong willed actor (DiMasi) doing what he's supposed to be doing, only more aggressively. This is a systemic imbalance in the workings of the state where entitlement and power were enabled by weak-willed and slack executives.  The entire system which you so rightly hold up as desirable depends on engagement by all actors. Too little engagement by one actor and the others will encroach.   That is exactly what happened. Now, we have all actors engaged with one (DiMasi) unwilling to give territory gained during the encroachment. It's that simple.

It's only unfortunate that we, as a people, don't run more primary races against incumbants - because that's truly the only way to constitutionally keep people like DiMasi in check.

Don't blame the people. That's too easy by a passive aggressive half.  Blame William Weld and Mitt Romney.  They failed to BE the co-equal branches that you so desire.  They failed.   Did you think there would be no consequences (at least for us) of their failure? Do you think that, like an elastice band, polis would snap back into alignment? Do you think it's supposed to correct itself?  Where would you get those ideas?  

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:54:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sigh... (4.00 / 1)

Seriously, how long do you want to drag this out? I was within the confines of the definition of alienate. Seriously..

Deval Patrick is the executive. He is 'co-equal' with the ENTIRE legislature... of which DiMasi is ONLY one member.

Deval Patrick is one member of the executive branch, just as DiMasi is only one  member of the legislative branch. While Deval is the leader of the executive branch, DiMasi is the leader of the legislative branch (along with the Senate President). This isn't that hard to fathom.

The only reason DiMasi has been particularly powerful (and, please, pay attention, we've gone over this before) is because of the stunning weakness (nay, absence) of the past (Republican) Governors

That may have lead to a situation where Speakers started to take full advantage of the potentials of their powers, but the fact of the matter is DiMasi is powerful precisely because he's the Speaker of the House with enough support in that body to almost always get his way. Certainly, I agree with you that weak Republican Governors lead to Speakers becoming that powerful, but that doesn't mean for a second that any Speaker of the House couldn't have done the same thing no matter the party occupying the Corner Office. If a strong executive is all it took to create a strong executive office - as you suggest - then Deval Patrick should be well on his way to wrestling back the powers. Unfortunately, a strong executive can't pass legislation, which is precisely why a Speaker of the House in any state, or at the federal level, can become extremely powerful if they have huge party loyalty and a large enough majority.

Don't blame the people. That's too easy by a passive aggressive half.  Blame William Weld and Mitt Romney.

I should blame Mitt Romney and Bill Weld for not running primary races against DiMasi? I'm not being passive aggressive. The population in general is reticent to run against incumbents or do anything to foster important change. That much is an unfortunate fact. There's a movement of people (progressives) working hard to change that, but we haven't been as successful as we'd like yet. If you're furious at DiMasi, you should find someone in his district that agrees with your point, encourage that person to run and get involved in the campaign. Even if they fail, they could win - win by forcing DiMasi to change some of his policies and maybe become an advocate for some of the good policy ideas being bandied about. Heck, as a Field Director, I'd even give you a few free pointers in how to defeat a powerful incumbent.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 14:17:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Would combined reporting affect all corporations adversely? (6.00 / 1)

This one seems like a good common-sense measure that might even save some corporations money by their not having to hire "high-powered" accounting and law firms to set up LLC's in Bermuda and three different partnerships, S-corporations and so forth in MA all for the purpose of saving a few bucks in taxes. Is tax-code jockeying really a productive service that adds value to our economy?

---

by: Farnkoff @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:37:02 PM CST