| Yes, I'll be "liveblogging" the State of the Commonwealth speech ... on a pad of paper. I'll have thoughts afterward. (I don't have a laptop -- anyone know where to get one dirt-cheap? Suggestions for brand? etc.)
UPDATE: Here it is...
What did I think of the speech? Well... it was... fine. I guess. He's an OK speaker, stumbles over some lines, including his laugh lines, but seems like he means what he says. That's not as easy as it seems.
But really, as my title implies, this speech was really not about the future of Massachusetts as it was about the past three years -- and the future of Mitt Romney. That's fine; as I've said, I wouldn't begrudge him any real accomplishments on behalf of the citizens of Massachusetts just because he's running for President.
It was refreshing to hear his graciousness to DiMasi and Travaglini, and to hear him talking up Massachusetts. Where has this Mitt Romney been? If he's afraid that this kind of thing wouldn't play to the Republican activists, that really doesn't speak well of them, does it?
A LOT more beneath the fold... (click "There's more") |
| When it comes to his "accomplishments" as Governor, it is plain that he will point to the turnaround of the state budget. Yes, he raised fees; yes, everyone's property taxes are going up; yes, we had to cut teachers and librarians and cops from the local payrolls and medical care from the poor; and yes, most states are experiencing some revenue recovery... but that's what he's got. He said, "Things feel a lot better than three years ago." Well, the budget's in better shape, but are we in better shape?
For the record, other accomplishments he pointed to included: Welcome Home Bill for returning MA veterans; keeping military bases (sharing credit with congressional delegation); property tax relief for senior citizens; Adams scholarships; Melanie's bill (anti-DUI); and Katrina relief efforts.
*Interestingly, he mentioned a new $200 million "reserve account" to fund the health care bill. The timing is very interesting, since the House/Senate conference committee is said to be nearing a deal; I wonder if the two are connected. And what the heck is a "reserve account"? And is $200 million anywhere near enough to make the plan workable?
*In education, Romney correctly pointed to the success of 4th and 8th graders in English and Math tests. How different from the "torture and twist"speech he had for teachers on Monday. Not exactly Dale Carnegie, was that.
*He mentioned abstinence education, getting an approving whistle from someone in the crowd. This was naturally seen as a sop to the right-wing Republican primary voters he'll be courting over the next four years. I have a different take on that: While I deplore "abstinence only" education, shouldn't there be a place in our schools to deal with sexual issues honestly, thoughtfully, and respectfully, which includes reasons for kids *not* to have sex? To act as a counterbalance to locker-room and media culture that treats sex as an abusive power game, as exploitation, or as commerce? That might be a genuinely progressive thing -- even (gosh!) feminist. Anyway, I think there's room for a progressive voice in that conversation -- to talk about *our* values, and move beyond having to choose between a. just "facts of life" sexual mechanics, or b. "abstinence only" distortions and outright lies.
*Romney offered to lower the income tax from 5.3% to 5% over two years, rather than all in one fell swoop. I just think it's a bad idea for people to vote directly on taxation levels, since none of us really know what's the "correct" level of taxation, and that will tend to put more strain on localities. Deval Patrick has the right idea about tax policy, although as many on this site have stated, he may need to be a bit more sophisticated about framing the issue. And to my mind, if you're talking about taxes one way or the other, you've got to talk about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse -- *that's* what needs to be drowned in the bathtub. That means challenging some entrenched interests in this state. Honest, clean government and honest taxation have got to go hand in hand. If you want to lower taxes, you've got to show that you cut out truly unnecessary spending. If you want to raise taxes, you've got to prove you can spend it honestly and efficiently.
*Mitt's rundown on job growth was pretty thin gruel. He is right to talk about the cost of housing -- his development guy Doug Foy, who I gather is well-regarded in progressive circles, had an op-ed today talking about the work they've done on smart growth. Without implicating the Romney adminstration in particular, I guess we're left to question whether these development approaches are a. late or b. inadequate.
*Did he really say we should "send record levels of pork to cities and schools"? I must have heard that wrong.
*Why did he mention "jihadists" as a threat? On a day when Michael Fortier just got released from prison, do we imagine that terrorists are only *Muslim* fanatics?
The Greater Boston bobbleheads on 'GBH basically agreed that the speech had little to do with what will happen on Beacon Hill over the next year. It was strange, since I don't really see how it helps him in '08 either -- except that he was "nice" tonight. That's how we'll remember Our Guv: a mystery wrapped in an enigma layered with styling mousse. |
